Page 1366 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This term she successfully moved a motion on trees that has led to significant action on a review of the Tree Protection Act—which I think Ms Lawder just suggested we do not need—and the planning rules around trees and green space. She has also campaigned to stop the decline in street and park tree numbers and for a government tree canopy target.
In my role as the climate change minister, I have released the new living infrastructure strategy for Canberra, following extensive community consultation and input. That strategy recognises the value of trees and other living infrastructure, particularly in the climate change context, and commits the government to a new 30 per cent tree canopy target, a significant increase on the current canopy of about 20 per cent. The investment in the tree canopy target already started through the last budget, with a large investment in new tree plantings, as Minister Steel has outlined in his remarks today.
At this point I want to note the public commentary of the Canberra Liberals that the government has apparently cut Canberra’s tree canopy from 30 per cent to 21 per cent. I have heard that remark publicly a number of times now and it is also on their website. This is simply not true; it has not happened. It is more post-truth politics. That would be a good claim to refer to—
Mrs Dunne: It’s in your own report.
MR RATTENBURY: Let’s come to the report. The 2017 study which Ms Lee cited in her remarks today found that the ACT had lost 10.8 per cent of its tree canopy cover during 2008-16. The impact of the millennium drought was a significant causal factor in this reduction, the report notes. Losing ten per cent of canopy cover does not mean we have gone from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. If we assume canopy cover was around 20 per cent, a 10 per cent loss equates to a two per cent reduction in overall canopy cover. So it has not gone from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. I urge the Canberra Liberals to check their facts and check their maths and, if they have got this wrong, to correct it. If they think they have something that shows a difference, they should send it to me. I would love to see it. They have their maths wrong and they need to come clean and fix up their website and stop using this figure publicly because it is simply not true.
The simplicity of Ms Lee’s motion perhaps reflects that same lack of policy thinking I have just highlighted, with the factoids being flung about to try and build a narrative that justifies the position they are trying to build. There is a lot more to making good living infrastructure and climate change policy than just saying, “We’ll plant a million trees.” There are some things about this election promise that make it look a bit tokenistic, as if there was a need for a really nice, round number and suddenly it makes it seem that they care about climate change after years of making semi-sceptic speeches, rather than actually having an effective and well thought out policy on climate change and living infrastructure.
What types of trees will these million trees be? That is an important question because they need to be trees that are appropriate for our urban area. They also need to be resilient to the changing climate and they need to support an increase in canopy to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video