SIGNIFICANT TREES LEGISLATION

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:32): I rise to discuss reform for the significant tree laws and what appears to be an unending delay in having the regulations passed. I am convinced that our current significant tree laws are indeed unworkable. For that reason, Family First in 2009 resurrected a lapsed government bill that was, admittedly, controversial to some level but did resolve a number of the glaring problems in the current scheme. Of course, the government supported the bill, given that it was its own bill, as did a number of the crossbenchers, and it passed this place and, indeed, the other place as well.

I will give you an example of a few of the problems. Under the current scheme, local residents are forced to hire arborists at their own expense to carry out investigations into trees they want to remove. This is then followed up by councils regularly sending their own tree expert in any event. It is expensive for residents, obviously; it doubles up on the resources expended, and arborists' reports are sometimes criticised by councils for not being sufficiently independent—a somewhat difficult situation.

Added to that are several glaring anomalies in the scheme. The scheme had a sole blinding focus on the circumference of a tree. I know that was not the original intention as passed by this place, but that is what it has turned into, and factors such as the situation of the tree, the type of tree, its local value and the health of the tree, for example, are largely disregarded. If a tree has a circumference of more than two metres, it is deemed significant—end of story in many situations. It does not matter very much at all if it is dangerous, exotic or even dead in some cases.

Indeed, we have seen the very bizarre situation exposed, with the Today Tonight program reporting on a number of stumps—literally just stumps—in people's yards which cannot be removed because they are regarded as significant because of the two-metre rule. These are just stumps; they do not have any height to them whatsoever. They are literally stumps in the yard, but because they have a circumference of greater than two metres they are deemed significant. I think all of us would regard that as ludicrous. However, some highly valued and rare native trees are not regarded as significant because they do not meet the two-metre requirement, and I think this is just an unacceptable situation. Indeed, I am sure members in this place would wholeheartedly agree with that.

Primarily for that reason, as well as a number of others, Family First introduced the legislation previously mentioned to fix this broken and unworkable system. As I mentioned, it was a government bill. The government was good enough to support it, a number of the crossbenchers supported it, the bill passed this place and it passed downstairs. The Development (Regulated Trees) Amendment Bill was introduced on 17 June 2009, received passage on 17 November 2009 and was assented to on 1 December 2009.

So, the bill has passed, but we are still waiting for the regulations—not just me personally, of course, but at least half a dozen people who call my office virtually every week wanting to know when the scheme will be implemented, and the many hundreds of other people I have not spoken to recently but I have over the last couple of years or so on this particular issue, and that excludes the many thousands of people who I have not spoken to who have not contacted my office but I am sure are experiencing the same difficulties.

One letter I have from the department indicates that the regulations were to be completed in 2010, and that date obviously was not achieved. My office was informed that the regulations would be then completed by April 2011 and, when that date passed, I was assured that at the very latest by June 2011 the regulations would be completed and the new system would be in place. Again, that date has obviously not been achieved and now we are advised of a possible November completion date for the regulations. So, the point is that this keeps getting put off. I understand there is a consultation process, and that is a good thing; however, at some stage, this new regime needs to be put in place.

It has now been 18 months since the passage of this bill. Constituents want action on this bill. Family First certainly wants action on this bill. No doubt, a number of members in this place and the other place want action on this bill. I call on the minister to ensure that the regulations be completed in the very near future so that the nuisance and hardship that people have been suffering because of this unworkable situation can be addressed as soon as possible.