Page 4364 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Promoting one aspect is going to have a perhaps negative effect on another aspect of government policy. There is not a clear policy direction, but what we are seeing is an attempt to impose more and more bureaucracy. The motion calls on the government to commence within 12 months joint reviews of the Territory Plan and TCCS infrastructure design standards to ensure that new subdivisions and urban renewal precincts can achieve the tree canopy targets.
Do we want solar access in new suburbs, or do we want tree canopy? It is very difficult to achieve both. Commencing a review of the Tree Protection Act and the possible introduction of a tree curator to support the delivery of tree canopy cover targets? Another review? Another curator? We already have a Conservator of Flora and Fauna, we have protected trees and we have a lot of bureaucracy already in place to ensure that trees and plants are looked after and maintained. What we are seeing here is the potential for yet more regulation that may be inconsistent with other areas of government policy.
What this motion does not say is that there are millions of trees now growing across the valleys of Canberra, many on private land. In her forward to Lindsay Pryor’s seminal reference on Canberra trees in 1991, Rosemary Follett, the ACT’s first Labor Chief Minister, said, “This book will be a useful resource for those involved in planning and planting trees in Canberra.” The book notes that prior to European settlement of the limestone plains in the early 1820s most of the valleys in which the various town centres of Canberra are now located were treeless. The 1991 book noted that in the following 170 years these treeless plains had been planted with millions of trees, many of which are on private land. So in 1991 there were millions of trees where there had been none before. This had been done with no tree red tape. This had been done without overbearing bureaucracy. This had been done with no Tree Protection Act, no tree advisory panel, no tree preservation orders, and certainly no tree curator, as has been called for in Ms Le Couteur’s motion today.
What we need are sensible tree management processes. We need to be able to easily fix situations where poorly situated and selected large trees have been planted by well-meaning but ill-advised people. We need sensible tree preservation to enhance solar access. We need less unnecessary bureaucracy.
It is worth noting, that, while prior to 1991 we had no tree preservation orders in place but we had millions of trees, the government has also cut down a lot of trees, including 450 trees on Northbourne Avenue. No-one seemed to care about those trees being chopped down.
I do not believe we need targets; I do not believe we need a tree curator. We need to review the Tree Protection Act, but for private home owners let us make it more flexible and less bureaucratic; let us have less restriction. People have shown their love of trees; people like to put trees in their yards. They like to have shade; they like to have trees for their children to play in, on and under. They like to see the progression of leaves and structures throughout the year.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video