Page 3405 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
name [see schedule 4 at page 3418]. Once again, this relates to trees of Aboriginal significance.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 56 to 58, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 59.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (5.48): I move amendment No 7 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 3417]. Clause 59 is probably one of the most draconian parts of the bill and we need to consider what we are doing here. The conservator essentially can make a determination that a tree has been cancelled off the register because it has died or no longer has significance. That declaration is now a notifiable instrument, and it should be, as with the others, a disallowable instrument.
The act of taking a tree off the register, in itself, is not a problem; the implications of a tree coming off the register, if someone wants to develop the land, are significant indeed. Subclause 4 of clause 59 gives the conservator huge powers to prohibit someone taking any development action on the site for up to five years. This is a considerable impost on people.
It does not take account, as Mr Mulcahy said in the in-principle debate this morning, of who perpetrated any harm that may have befallen the tree that is no longer on the register. It just says that you are the landowner where the tree was; it is no longer on the register; and we are going to hold you responsible for it being there, to the extent that we will not let you develop on your land for up to five years as punishment just in case you did something. First and foremost, the decision to take something off a register must be widely and publicly known.
The opposition will also be opposing this clause.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo–Minister for Health and Minister for Planning, and Acting Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Acting Minister for Women and Acting Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.50): Just briefly on this issue: I hear the concerns raised by Mrs Dunne but I think it is well worth making the point that the provision in this clause ensures that people cannot profit from an action which results in the destruction of a tree which would have otherwise hindered their development proposal. There are processes in place that allow trees to be removed if it can be demonstrated that there is no viable alternative development or design resolution for a development. And those provisions continue.
But it is important that we send a signal, as an Assembly, that someone cannot be party, directly or indirectly, to the removal of a tree and say, “I wasn’t aware of it; nothing to do with me,” and then be able to receive the benefit of that action. So it is an important measure. It sends a strong signal that development is not at any price and that the retention of significant trees is something that the community places a higher value on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .