Page 219 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Lyneham. In effect, it is the busiest part of Northbourne Avenue as we know it between Dickson and the city. On these trees the report said:
The trees are performing well in the landscape. Over 75% of trees assessed exhibit ‘Fair’ or ‘Good’ health and over 65% have a Useful Life Expectancy of greater than 20 years.
The report then continues to say that 85 were recommended for removal. So in 2010 the government were advised they only needed to remove 16 per cent of the trees on Northbourne; just 16 per cent—not 100 per cent; 16 per cent. In reality over 340 of these trees could remain on the Northbourne median until 2030. By the time you replanted on an ongoing basis you would have many, many more there as well. In fact, the trees could survive so long that a majority of them probably would see this government spend its final $100 million availability payment in 2039.
In actual fact, the trees would outlive the huge, huge repayments which the ACT government would be making under light rail. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see how the government are spinning their argument about trees on Northbourne Avenue: they are dying anyway and they should be replaced. On their new website, released just three weeks ago, the government claim:
Assessments of the current trees, Eucalyptus elata along the median of Northbourne show they are in decline and not adapted to the drought conditions that Canberra experiences.
That is not what the tree expert said the last time it got assessed.
Mr Corbell interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: You will have your opportunity, Mr Corbell.
MR COE: After that, landscape architects came on board as a consequence of the 2010 report. The 2010 report suggested hiring landscape architects for additional and different work. However, the 2010 report and the empirical evidence which the Greens talk about are contrary to their policy on light rail. The advice that they are now publishing contradicts the 2010 report I mentioned earlier. Why is the 2010 report not on their website? Why is it not on the capital metro website? Why is it not on the TAMS website? Why did it take an FOI from me to actually get that report?
The capital metro website goes on to say:
The 2010 assessment noted 802 trees in the corridor and of these, 513 were noted as being in good health.
This is highly misleading. The 2010 report clearly identifies 531 Eucalyptus elata trees in the median between Alinga Street and Mouat Street, what we commonly think of as Northbourne Avenue. The government is trying to confuse all the trees in the corridor with the Eucalyptus elata on the Northbourne Avenue median between Dickson and the city. Of course, on the median over 75 per cent of these trees were in good health and over 65 per cent could survive to 2030 and beyond. These trees are not in poor health and should not be chopped down, except for a very good cause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video