Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1155 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
21/2 metres or more, and also have a certain average circumference. This does not take account of many other eucalypts which would fall under the criteria for any other tree but are not currently warranting protection in accordance with the criteria the government set out.
The Labor Party believes there needs to be a more consistent approach and to say that any tree which has a height of 12 or more metres, has a trunk circumference of 11/2 metres or more, or has a canopy of 12 metres or more wide, or has multiple trunks combining 11/2 metres or more, should warrant protection regardless of whether or not it is a eucalypt. I would like to signal to members that the Labor Party will be moving an amendment to that extent in the detail stage.
Mr Speaker, this is a very important issue. The whole purpose of interim protection is to prevent pre-emptive removal pending the introduction of a permanent scheme, so we are talking about legislation which is, of its very nature, short term. But for it to be effective we must make sure that it does not result in trees being removed which may be found in two or three months time, following a public consultation process, to be trees warranting permanent protection.
The Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services report into the establishment of a significant tree register recommended that the criteria for significant trees be determined through a public consultation process which was wide ranging and took account of the various circumstances affecting different suburbs in the ACT. We cannot, therefore, set criteria too narrowly for interim protection because we do not know what that public consultation process will find. We do not know what the community feedback will be in relation to what sorts of trees the Canberra community regard as significant and warranting protection.
Therefore, it would be wise to provide for a broader range of protection in the interim scheme even if, in the permanent scheme, a lesser range of protections apply if that is the wish of the public consultation process. It would be foolish indeed to have it the other way around-to have narrow protections in the interim scheme and then to discover we need more broad-ranging protections in the permanent scheme.
Mr Speaker, the bill also deals with a range of other issues and they seem to be reasonably appropriately addressed. These issues are to do with access onto property by authorised persons to inspect trees. The establishment of an adviser to advise the conservator, who is the decision-maker in relation to protection issues, is also a useful step, and I welcome the minister's indication that he will be seeking to consult with the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services as to the appointment of this person.
The only other issue I wish to raise, Mr Speaker, relates to the criteria under which the conservator is empowered to make a decision to permit a tree listed as a significant tree under the interim protection provisions to be removed. These criteria are a disallowable instrument, and I would imagine that once this bill is passed today the minister will be presenting a disallowable instrument to the Assembly. The provisions of that disallowable instrument that have been made available to me and to other members in this place by the minister indicate that it is permissible to remove a tree listed as
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .