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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 3254 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

The point needs to be made, Mr Speaker, that, regardless of the ownership of the site, those trees will have to be retained-regardless of whether it's privately held or held by the territory. The DA for the block was conditionally approved in May 2002 by the former Commissioner of Land and Planning. After the approval, further discussions were held between the developer, Planning And Land Management which is now ACTPLA, Environment ACT, the Commissioner for the Environment and other interested parties to explore ways of further responding to issues that were relevant. As a result, the plans were further amended, Mr Speaker.

The amended plans result in the removal of only 7 significant trees out of the 21. Six of these were either in decline, with a short life expectancy, or presented an unacceptable risk to public or private safety. Mr Speaker, even if the territory acquired this block of land, we would still have to remove those trees. I think that point needs to be borne in mind by members of this place.

Even if the territory was to reacquire this land, those trees would have to be removed because, in accordance with the law, the assessment is they are unsafe trees. If we are going to permit people to use that space, the trees will have to be removed. That's what is so fundamentally flawed about this proposition. Even if the site is returned to or acquired by the territory, those trees will have to be removed because they are unsafe, Mr Speaker.

The plans, as approved, do provide for the protection of five other significant high-value trees and a number of other trees on the block. The conservator approved an application to remove seven trees and undertake groundwork within the tree protection zone of five others in January this year. This decision was made in light of advice from the independent tree adviser and recommendations of the Commissioner for the Environment.

Mr Speaker, the approach has been an extremely thorough one. Our legislation provides not just for a conservator who makes decisions about tree removal, who themselves are independent-they have statutory independence-but there is an independent adviser to the independent decision maker.

On that basis, it was decided that the trees need to be removed. That's a very open, transparent and reasonable process-an independent adviser to an independent decision maker.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR CORBELL: I seek an extension of time.

MR SPEAKER: You may seek an extension of time after lunch.

Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74, and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.

Sitting suspended from 12.34 to 2.31 pm.

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