Page 1659 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I rely, of course, on the advice of departmental officers and officials. I rely on the advice of the tree assessment unit in relation to the assessment of the state or status of any tree. It is a matter of great distress that the decision was taken that there was no safe alternative, on the basis of the risk presented, other than to treat this tree in the way that it was treated.
I think it is important in the context of that, though, to understand that in the last six years 18,500 mature trees have died within the urban area of the ACT—drought affected, age affected and drought stressed. Of those 18,500 trees, 15,000 have been removed, at a cost of somewhere in the order of $3 million to the territory. That is the nature and the scale of the issue we face in relation to an ageing urban forest and a drought that has now persisted for coming up to eight years. It has resulted in the death of 18,500 mature trees. It has required us to remove 15,000.
It is at the heart of the initiative which we are actively pursuing in relation to the maintenance and replacement of our urban forest, a forest of 630,000 trees, 400,000 of which we believe will need to be removed over the space of the next 30 years. In the last five years—in the context of this issue, this is an issue we do all need to engage in and on—the ACT government, through this unit within Territory and Municipal Services, has removed 15,000 dead and drought affected trees. In the next 30 years, the intention at this stage, subject to the outcomes of more detailed studies and of community engagement—in the last five years, we have removed 15,000; in the next 30 years, as things stand today, we intend to remove 400,000 trees—400,000. In the context just of the nature and the scope of the report in today’s Canberra Times, that is one tree in 15,000 that has already been removed, and there are 400,000 more to come.
We need to have a conversation around this. I welcome the contribution by the Canberra Times, but I do believe that it would be useful if we could put that particular article in context. The tree was removed following representations from a local primary school that the primary school feared for the safety of children attending the school. The department, I believe, on the basis of its assessment that the fears were well founded, had absolutely no option but to take, regrettably and distressingly, the steps that were taken.
I love trees. I receive an awful lot of criticism as a result of my love of trees. The last thing I want to do is to see any tree removed. I am a tree person. My colleagues from time to time question me on my love for and pursuit of trees.
Mr Hargreaves: It can be the subject of mirth.
MR STANHOPE: It is not. It is an issue I find interesting. I find interesting the political attacks launched against me on the basis of trees. And yet we have one tree here—(Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, a supplementary question?
MS LE COUTEUR: It is my understanding that this tree is not, in fact, placed on the tree register. What assurances can be given about similar trees which are not placed on the tree register?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .