Page 4450 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, a supplementary question?
MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the government ever remove trees because it is economically more efficient to remove them rather than keep maintaining them throughout their old age?
MR STANHOPE: I would probably, to be able to answer that question completely and fully, need to take some additional advice on whether or not from time to time a discretion is exercised as to whether or not a particular tree might be rendered safe—for instance, if a number of its branches were removed. I would have to perhaps take advice on whether or not a discretion is from time to time exercised that it simply would not be cost efficient or effective in the longer term, particularly in the context of the 650,000 trees that are comprised within the urban environment. There are 650,000 planted trees. These are not self-sown; these are trees that have been planted here since 1913.
TAMS manages 650,000 trees in the urban forest. Those are the planted trees. And we are talking here about a decision taken after individual inspection. We are talking about the removal of 282, each of which has been identified by an expert as dying, in poor health or dangerous. The government has accepted that advice and the government proposes to remove those dead, dying, unhealthy or dangerous trees and replace them. The urban forest renewal program is a program that has been foisted upon us by the ageing of our urban forest. If that urban forest renewal program is proceeded with and advanced, we are not talking about the removal of 282 trees over a spring; we are talking about, over the next 20 to 30 years, the removal of somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 trees. (Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Ms Burch, a supplementary question?
MS BURCH: Yes, please. Could the minister please explain to members the difference between the tree replacement program and the urban forest renewal program?
Mr Hanson: He wasn’t satisfied with his first answer.
MR STANHOPE: I did give some indication of that, but I must say that my concern about some of the media commentary that members have made in relation to this particular issue is the extent to which the two programs are being confused in the public mind. The government has a funded program to seek to renew our urban forest. We are looking at the prospect, on the basis of expert advice—advice provided by the CSIRO and I think the ANU—over the next 20 to 30 years, of a major crisis if we do not act.
From time to time, trees die. Indeed, as I just said, over the last five years, during this period of drought and as a result of the combination of ageing trees and drought, we are removing, currently, thousands of trees a year. I believe the last number I saw was 16,000 over the last five years. These 282 trees comprise half of the number of the 16,000 that I believe have been removed in the last five years. It is just that with heightened awareness, as a result of decisions that the government has taken and on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .