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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (29 March) . . Page.. 1156 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

significant in order to make room for a development if it can be demonstrated that there is no other practicable design alternative.

Mr Speaker, I have some concerns with this. If a tree is significant, particularly in the interim protection stage, surely it should be retained until we have made firm and final decisions about what should be listed as a significant tree in a permanent register. This will be an issue the Labor Party will be considering further once this bill is passed and a disallowable instrument has been presented to the Assembly.

Overall we welcome the introduction of this legislation. We have seen, over the past five years since the election of this government, a dramatic increase in the rate of urban renewal in many of our established suburbs, and we have seen with that the wholesale clearing of blocks of trees to make room for dual occupancy and multi-unit development. This bill hopefully will be the first step in addressing that.

MS TUCKER (12.20): Ever since the Greens were elected to the Assembly in 1995 we have been raising the need for tree protection laws. In 1997 we put up amendments to the Nature Conservation Act to provide protection for at least trees on private blocks, but this was not supported by the Assembly at the time. I do not recall Labor even supporting that, but I think Michael Moore may have. Basically, we did not have the awareness of the issue in the last Assembly.

However, there was sufficient support after the 1998 election for an inquiry to be established into tree protection by the urban services committee. This commenced in September 1998 but the committee did not report until April 2000. It recommended that a significant tree register be established as a central element of the ACT's tree policy. Trees listed on the register would be given legislative protection and require approval for removal.

The Greens believe that a broader tree protection regime would be better than a significant tree register. We believe that all mature trees are significant in their own right; they do not need to be registered as such. I am worried that the tree register could end up only containing a very limited number of trees, perhaps less than should be the case. However, we do not think that every tree should be protected forever. There is obviously a need to balance the extent of tree cover in the city with the need to provide sufficient space for buildings, roads and associated urban infrastructure. What is needed is sufficient checks on the removal of trees so that trees are only removed for good reason. However, as we now know, it is the wish of the majority of the Assembly to support a significant tree register, so I will work with this.

We have been concerned about the time it has taken to get this significant tree register happening. Almost every week I have been getting calls to my office about some tree being cut down on a private block for no apparent reason or to allow some new building to be constructed. Canberra's tree coverage makes a significant contribution to the city's unique character as the so-called bush capital as well as being an important environmental asset, but we have been seeing this tree cover being eroded on almost a daily basis.

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