Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 15 Hansard (Thursday, 15 December 2005) . . Page.. 5015 ..


Now that the drought appears to have been broken, how many category 3 ovals closed by the Government (a) have been brought back to full maintenance and (b) will be brought back to full maintenance by 1 July 2006;

When is it intended to bring all of these category 3 ovals back to full maintenance and which ovals will not be restored.

Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

a) The following category 3 ovals have been brought back to full maintenance: Page Neighbourhood Oval (NHO); Downer NHO; Kaleen North NHO and Nicholls NHO.

b) It will not be possible to bring the remaining category 3 ovals back to full maintenance by 1 July 2006 as extensive restoration works are needed.

The restoration of all remaining category 3 ovals is subject to budget outcomes for 2006/07.


Trees—public liability(Question No 822)

Mr Pratt asked the Minister for Urban Services, upon notice, on 14 December 2005:

Regarding The Canberra Times letter to the editor “Who’ll be liable?” dated 9 December 2005, page 17, what rights does a resident have if a tree (not established on the residents block) falls across the boundary from a neighbours block and damages property or injures an individual;

Is he able to say (a) who is liable and why they are liable in the example case above if a neighbour has been asked to remove a particular tree and denies the request and (b) does this liability change if the neighbour has not been asked to remove the tree in question;

If a resident has been denied a request to remove a tree by a Government authority for environmental, heritage or other reasons, is he able to say who is liable and why are they liable if the tree in question causes injury to the resident or damage to the resident’s property.

Who is liable for trees on public land that, due to a branch falling or otherwise, cause damage to private property or injury to citizens.

Mr Hargreaves: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:

(1, 2 & 3) This would be a matter to be determined by a court proceedings.

(4) Where the Territory is the occupier of public land it owes a duty to persons who might use that land to take reasonable care for their safety. This does not mean that where a person sustains injury or damage on Territory land the Territory is necessarily liable. Liability will depend on all the circumstances including the Territory's knowledge of the state of the particular tree and what steps were reasonably open to it in light of any such knowledge.



Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .