Page 1017 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2023

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

mechanism for incentivising retention or onsite replanting of trees approved
for removal.

And the bill introduces tree bonds to:

… support existing tree protection plans and requirements and promote clear understanding and equal application of tree protection requirements across industry and the community in the ACT.

The bill has been scrutinised by the Standing Committee on Justice and Committee Safety (Legislative Scrutiny Role), the scrutiny committee, and the subject of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Planning, Transport and City Services.

Comments and concerns raised by the scrutiny committee include:

… the explanatory statement of potential limitations on privacy includes reference to the power given to the director-general to carry out work to repair damage done to a protected tree, or remove or replace the tree, where a person fails to comply with a tree reparation directive… There is no express authority for the director-general, their delegate, or other authorised person to enter private property to carry out such repair work. This can be contrasted with proposed section 47 which provides for entry by authorised persons to take action set out in a tree protection direction…The Committee asks the Minister for further information on why these protections were not similarly provided in the case of carrying out work under a tree reparation direction.

There is the inclusion of offences with a fault element of negligence which has not been included in the explanatory statement despite being included in the bill. The scrutiny committee also note:

Clause 144 will authorise the making of regulations which create offences with a maximum penalty of not more than 10 penalty units. The explanatory statement accompanying the Bill does not provide any justification for why a power to create offences in regulations is required.

The committee requested further information as to the provision outlined in the explanatory statement relating to the power of transitional regulations:

… why such a provision is considered necessary, particularly given the scope of the proposed transit1ional provisions already included in chapter 20, and what other options were considered to ensure an effective transition to the new arrangements under the Bill.

Finally, the scrutiny committee also requested further information on why it is necessary to allow the incorporation of instruments as in force from time to time and why notification of incorporated Australian standards has been displaced, requesting the explanatory statement be amended to include this information.

Then we had the PTCS committee inquiry. I know their report discussed many similar concerns to that of the scrutiny committee. However, it also provided 17 recommendations which related to the intent and implementation of the bill more broadly and other related elements such as the Tree Advisory Panel and resourcing of

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video