Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Exceptional Tree Register) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 November 2021.)

The Hon. J.B. TEAGUE (Heysen—Minister for Planning and Local Government) (12:05): I rise to address the bill. In doing so, I would perhaps preface my remarks in relation to the substance of the bill by indicating that we all love trees, so much so that we know, going back to the significant moment in April 2000 when the introduction of significant trees was first brought about, that reflected the sentiment that we all know that trees in our natural environment, urban environment in particular, are very much to be protected and valued appropriately.

As the member for Heysen, I can indicate that it is the artist for whom my seat is named who might be credited with having been the first promoter in a way, bringing global attention to the significance particularly of our native trees in Australia at a time when native trees were perhaps regarded as of secondary quality. Hans Heysen in his artistic work brought global appreciation to the significant trees in and around his home at The Cedars in the Adelaide Hills, painting those enormous gum trees and showing what treasures they are.

In fact, it reminds me as well, in that preceding generation or two before Hans Heysen came along and did that, of Jolliffe's Outback cartoon in which the local officials are walking down the main street in an early colonial town, and they are surrounded by buildings and walking under the enormous gum trees and deciding for themselves as a committee what else they can do in preparation for the royal visit other than cutting down all the big trees to clean out the main street. Again, it is highlighting a view that might have prevailed in a former time, not so anymore.

There is certainly furious agreement in modern times, and legislated as such, that we appreciate, protect and preserve significant trees. We see that expressed in the terms of the significant tree controls that have been in place now for more than 20 years. There has been an ongoing debate about the process for controlling the removal of such trees and particularly the protection of those who would preserve large trees in urban areas. We have seen, therefore, significant amendment of the tree controls in November of 2011.

That means that, as presently defined, we have very particular criteria for the regulation of trees in such areas, based on trunk circumference, and we have pruning controls, species definition and provision in relation to removal in particular defined circumstances around dwellings, swimming pools and so on, with the result that it is now very familiar territory throughout the state, and particularly in urban areas that we understand the importance of such significant trees.

The bill, coming along as it does, would have the effect of establishing and maintaining a fresh register of what is described as exceptional trees according to a range of criteria. While the sentiment associated with the establishing and maintaining of such a register might be applauded, the practical difficulties are apparent also on the face of the bill. I will highlight four of them in particular just to illustrate the reasons why the government would oppose the bill as it is presently expressed.

Firstly, as I have indicated, the creation, establishment and maintenance of the register will create and in many ways duplicate an ongoing administrative function. That will require ongoing specialist advice, in that it contemplates that this would be reported on at least once a month. There would be a list that is maintained by councils and there would be the consequent administrative burden that might be clear in just describing it.

Secondly, and perhaps related to that, there is no indication as to council support or otherwise for the administrative process involved, and that is for the reason—and this is the second point I would perhaps highlight—that we have not seen any particular consultation along those lines or engagement processes in relation to the nomination of an exceptional tree.

As someone who is newly responsible for planning in my ministerial capacity, I highlight that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, the outworking of which we are now seeing implemented, has very much at its core that consultation occurs consistent with the community engagement charter. Under the bill's provisions there is really a departure from that approach, in that property owners who have a tree that council might nominate would not be notified pursuant to the terms of the bill. I just indicate that in the broader context of the PDI Act and its objects.

Thirdly, I indicate that the currently regulated significant tree controls apply in metro Adelaide. They also apply in urban parts of the Hills and the Mount Barker council area. The bill, as it is presently described, would apply statewide and so we would see this exceptional tree register then implemented statewide. Regional parts of the state, of course, are regulated by the Native Vegetation Act and so we would have work to do in terms of the overlay.

Fourthly, I will just indicate in respect of the bond provisions that are provided for in the bill—without working through that in more particular detail—that they will impose a significant financial burden on development in such ways that would be affecting an exceptional tree. Those are just a number of the issues with the bill as presently drafted.

Returning to my introductory remarks, the sentiment might be applauded meanwhile, and it might be for others to talk about the State Planning Commission's initiatives in relation to open space and trees, but otherwise I would indicate that those are the reasons why the government would oppose the bill as presently drafted.