Page 3346 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
you what that standard is and I would suggest to you that if we surveyed our electorates you would be lucky if you found a single soul who could actually tell you what it is.
There is no evidence of a comprehensive education program to complement this legislation. It is simply giving the heavy hand of the law more control over our populace. There will be more regulation and more legislation, which is more in line with big government and controlling peoples lives than coming up with a sensible approach to deal with whatever problems may have been identified.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (12.12): We as Canberrans love our garden city. I think we love the fact that we have bushland and parkland on the edge of most of our suburbs. We pride ourselves on the many beautiful gardens that form part of our city and, of course, significant trees play an important part in the look and enjoyment of our suburbs. Because of the value that Canberrans place on their gardens and the look of their suburbs, I think this legislation is unnecessary.
I would echo many of the issues that Mr Mulcahy has raised. I believe that wherever possible landowners should be able to manage their properties as they see fit without undue government interference. Of course, at times there will be rogues but the question is: do we then apply strict measures across the community in response to the actions of a very small minority of Canberrans?
Canberra householders should be trusted to have an interest in ensuring that their gardens look good, and this will often mean planting and maintaining significant trees as a feature of those gardens. As a general rule, I do not see any mad rush by Canberrans to get rid of trees in their gardens. Many enjoy the shade provided by the trees; many enjoy the amenity that goes with that. Sometimes, though, trees are a nuisance. They do not always add to your garden, they do not always add to a streetscape. I think what this legislation does is basically say that big trees are always good and therefore getting rid of them is always bad, and we will make it an offence to do so. I think this approach is paternalistic and unhelpful.
We are basically saying to Canberrans, “Look, if we do not put in place these laws, we are afraid that all of you environmental terrorists out there will clear your gardens.” I see no evidence of that happening. I see no evidence that people have any great desire to get rid of their trees. There are circumstances in which trees are unsafe. There are circumstances when, say, a family wants to extend their home or where a tree just does not fit in with a garden anymore, people will want to remove or significantly prune trees. But I do not see any evidence that a lot of people will be trying to get rid of their trees.
I think the unfortunate attitude that underlies this bill is, “We need to look after trees. If we do not, if the government does not step in, then there is going to be trouble and there will be no trees left in Canberra and people’s gardens will be destroyed.” It is not in people’s interests to do that. It is in people’s interests to maintain their gardens, to have them looking good and, as I said earlier, that often will involve maintaining significant trees. But there are circumstances in which that is not a good outcome. I do not think we should be imposing such significant penalties and putting in place such a rigid framework which essentially prevents landowners from looking after their property in a way that they see fit.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .