Page 2911 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
They are the tangible measures that the economists give us. Then there are all of the intangibles. Mrs Dunne touched on some of these tangibles that are not even mentioned in this, such as the value of people’s properties. Of course we look forward to ACT Labor coming up with some sort of formula that taxes people for the extra value of their properties as a result of street trees! The same publication also notes:
These trees are aging and reaching the end of their life simultaneously. They also need greater levels of maintenance to minimise risk to community and property … There is a pressing need to commence replacement of Canberra’s urban forest.
So we have a situation which goes back many years. There was the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services report in 2000, An appropriate tree management protection policy for the ACT. That report talked about the importance and the essential nature of our urban forests to the vitality and look of our city. In fact, this is a press release from Mr Hargreaves that I am quoting from:
Our urban forest is essential to the vitality and look of our city and has benefits beyond the aesthetic such as environmental and economic benefits that further heighten its importance …
In order to leave a legacy for future generations, we need to plan for replacement forests better able to cope with the predicted dry climate.
It was acknowledged many years ago that we have gone down a path of trying to make that happen. Everyone in this place apparently agrees that that is a good thing. Everyone in this place apparently agrees that we should be spending money on that, that that is a good use of community resources and limited public funds. But this government has decided this year, “Actually it’s not that important. It’s no longer important. It is less important than it was last year or the year before. We’re going to slash $11 million.” Is it so they can put the money into health? Not really. It is so they can spend the money on the arboretum. That is what it is about.
They have chosen which trees are good trees and which trees are bad trees. The good trees, according to ACT Labor, are on the hill there for the arboretum. They are the good trees. According to ACT Labor, people’s street trees are no longer as important as they once were. All of the work that flowed, even from committee hearings and reports in this place a decade ago—and there has been work in recent years—is now apparently expendable. It is apparently no longer important. Jon Stanhope has decided that street trees, community amenity in their streets, in their suburbs, are not as important as his arboretum.
That is where we come to this fundamental question about priorities. We all apparently agree that it is a good thing. So the question is: which is more important? The Assembly will have a decision to make today. The Assembly can make a decision that says, “We believe it is more important that we spend money on street tree replacement, on maintaining the amenity of our suburbs. Whether it be in Tuggeranong, Belconnen, Gungahlin, the inner south, the inner north, Weston Creek, Woden, wherever it might be in this wonderful city of ours, we value that about Canberra.” It is all well and good to say you value it. Here we have an opportunity as an Assembly to actually say to the government, “No, you need to fix it.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video