Page 4864 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(5) acknowledges the harsh consequences that the removal of trees can have on residents’ quality of life;
(6) expresses concern about any policies that result in widespread removal of trees without individual tree assessments; and
(7) calls on the Government to ensure that:
(a) all trees are managed to ensure maximum lifespan for the benefit of the community;
(b) local communities are extensively consulted in all urban tree removal and replacement activities and are encouraged to participate in decisionmaking in relation to tree work undertaken in the local area;
(c) any potential risk posed by a tree to the public is assessed in consultation with the community and managed appropriately; and
(d) appropriate expertise is utilised to manage the process.”.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.22): I rise in support of Ms Le Couteur’s motion today. Given the way the debate has gone so far, I feel it is important to reflect on the actual motion itself. We know that this is an issue of considerable concern to the Canberra community. I think anybody who reads the Canberra Times, and we all do, knows how much of a concern this is to residents in many parts of Canberra, particularly the older parts of Canberra where it is the beautiful, older specimens of trees that do end up being felled. I think this is an issue that is extremely difficult. The Greens have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and seeking briefings from various parts of TAMS, particularly the team working specifically on this project. We have met with the expert reference group, and we have taken a very considered approach to this issue.
We are conscious of the fact that over the next 25 years, as the Chief Minister has gone to some length to explain in various places, including his opinion piece in last week’s paper, this is going to take some time. It is going to be a process that is going to be difficult and it is going to cost a lot of money. I think the intention of Ms Le Couteur’s motion today is to say that, at the start of this process, let us get it right. Let us set out in this Assembly the principles that we believe are important for a significant urban tree replacement program, this is the basis on which we want to operate and these are the principles by which this Assembly believes urban tree replacement should take place.
That is where I found the Chief Minister’s contribution, for want of a better word, so disappointing, because he has not actually commented on the substance of anything Ms Le Couteur’s motion says. I would like to reflect on a few of those paragraphs, because I cannot understand where the aggravation comes from, other than perhaps having got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. Ms Le Couteur’s motion calls upon the government to, amongst other things, ensure that timber from removed trees is used sustainably to minimise greenhouse gas emissions. Is there a problem? I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video