Page 4855 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
could also be used. But, ultimately, the government needs to work out a full model of consultation and participation rather than notification.
This program is too big a program and will cover too much of the community for the community not to have ownership of it. There are many questions that the government and the community need to talk about, such as: will we keep the same species as were there before? Will we end up putting in fruit trees, native trees or others? A couple of practical suggestions might be that the government employ tree education officers dedicated specifically to talking to the community about trees and that they develop programs that help the community to actively become involved in managing street trees. Frankston City Council has a successful “adopt a baby street tree” program, which gives buckets to householders which they use to collect greywater to water the newly planted trees.
This brings me to another important part of my motion: tree replacement and care. Care is particularly needed when new trees replace established trees. I have had a lot of complaints that the government has planted fewer trees than the number it cut down, and that the trees planted in their place have unfortunately been neglected, causing them to die or to become unhealthy. I have been told that the government has not been watering the trees adequately—only about once every six months. In the current drought environment this is disastrous to the trees’ health and usually leads to death. The irony is that mismanagement of trees will lead to them being more dangerous, which then means the government is more likely to have to remove them and plant others and the whole cycle continues in a way which is neither cost effective nor satisfactory for the community or the environment.
My motion also calls on the government to ensure that any potential risk to the public is assessed in consultation with the community and managed by risk mitigation actions that prioritise the continued life of the tree. Trees can, of course, be dangerous in urban environments and we need to manage them for the safety of everyone. But I would like to see the government commit to a balanced approach when it assesses the threat of an accident or indeed of litigation. The government should assess risk sensibly, taking into account the area around the tree, the wishes of the community and the reality that trees do, of course, age. It should not take the easy approach of removing all ageing trees instead of looking after them, pruning them where appropriate and managing them.
Solar access to buildings is another important issue and one which was never a consideration when most of our street trees were planted. With the climate crisis looming, we need to ensure that new trees do not block the northern sun from houses’ roofs and windows. We need to think about when deciduous trees are more appropriate, about the aspects of the trees and about their implications. Possibly we can plant shorter or deciduous trees on the northern sides of houses and still plant the endemic species of eucalypts on the southern, south-western or even western sides of houses to maintain wildlife habitat and late afternoon summer shading. This is clearly an area where we will need the input of local residents.
As trees age and form hollows, they become homes for native birds and other wildlife. The government tells me that its contractors are not supposed to remove trees when
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video