Page 4856 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
there are still active nests. Yet recently in Turner this is exactly what happened. Trees were removed and active nesting sites were destroyed. I understand that Parks, Conservation and Lands have an informal policy of telling contractors to avoid active nesting sites. But this is not really satisfactory. They need to have something other than an informal policy. Far too often we have the situation where governments stay at arm’s length from the actions of contractors and things sometimes go wrong.
This is why my motion calls on the government to make a commitment today that, if it uses contractors as part of its tree removal programs, it has strong safeguards and guidelines in place. It needs to formalise the requirements to make sure that contractors only follow best practice. This points to a large issue about how the government implements its policies and guidelines. When the residents complain about the government’s practices around trees, the typical response is: “All tree maintenance activities are governed by well-developed guidelines and procedures so that work is not carried out indiscriminately and so that public safety is not compromised.” That sounds absolutely fine. But are these procedures and guidelines always adhered to and are they as strong as they should be? Has the government lost touch with the details of its guidelines as it strives to cut costs and grow efficiency?
This and other concerns I have mentioned have led me to write to the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, requesting that she consider conducting an investigation into the ACT government’s implementation of the street tree replacement program and its strategy for managing trees on public land.
Lastly, I would like to touch on the issue of resources. Tree management is a long-term project which obviously requires long-term attention and resources, and these resources will need to be significantly boosted in recognition of the magnitude of the urban forest renewal program. I have met quite a number of public servants who work on tree issues. They are all dedicated and knowledgeable people, but I am concerned that there are not sufficient resources to do what is required of them. The tree protection unit, for example, has only two people to manage tree issues on private land for the whole of Canberra. In their spare time they are supposed to identify exceptional trees for the tree register, and not surprisingly they hardly have time for this.
We all know that the TAMS budget is in deficit—in fact, I believe that last year it was a $7 million deficit—and this is a reason for us to be concerned about this program because we do not want to see a situation where tree management suffers because of the current budgetary pressures on TAMS. This is a project which cannot be driven purely by short-term economics which may mean that corners get cut and thus trees have to be cut down needlessly.
My motion also calls on the government to ensure that the urban tree programs are not funded as climate change initiatives. The government in the 2008-09 budget rebadged its urban forest replacement program as a climate change initiative, even though in fact it has been carrying on a small-scale urban forest replacement program for many years; TAMS has been doing this for many years. This just seems to be a way of saying that the government is spending more on climate change initiatives than it really is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video