Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Unauthorised Tree-damaging Activity) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:06): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to put before this place a bill in regard to unauthorised tree-damaging activities—indeed, dodgy tree loppers. Nobody approves of it. Our laws not only discourage it but criminalise it, but when it happens our responses are wholly inadequate. A tree lopper recently was fined in the ERD Court for the third time this year after illegally removing a protected river red gum on a Salisbury property. That tree measured 6.8 metres in diameter and likely predated European colonisation. The tree lopper was both unethical and unlucky, as it is actually rare for them to be caught and even fined. The fine for removing this beautiful tree was a mere $10,000.

Whilst the maximum fine is more than $10,000, the maximum penalty is one that is rarely, if ever, applied. The intent of this bill is quite simple: it is to make it less attractive for unethical tree loppers to run the risk of removing trees illegally. A significant body of work has been undertaken by the Conservation Council of South Australia and community advocates to improve this state's tree protections, and I commend the Malinauskas government for their efforts in this. This is simply yet another good idea that we continue to progress that work.

But there is more remaining to be done, and community advocates recognise that changes made last year were a great first tranche. Unfortunately, though, we are still seeing good numbers of illegal tree removals occurring. Not only this, we continue to see the same names time and time again responsible for that. Fines for what the regulations refer to coyly as 'illegal tree damaging activity' and which are mostly illegal removals remain insignificant, partly by comparison to the amounts that can be made for their removal. We know that these fines are not a deterrent. If they were, illegal tree removals would slow and we would not see those same names cropping up time and time again in the ERD Court, nor would we see cleanskin trucks (unlabelled trucks and equipment) removing trees illegally and getting away with what many in our community see as murder.

One can only assume that unethical tree loppers see fines of a mere $10,000 as one of the basic costs of doing their dodgy business, just as the unethical developers who seek the services of these loppers are happy to risk an insignificant fine should they be caught. It is fair to say that the Greater Adelaide area does have some serial offenders.

This bill introduces the further sanction of forfeiture of equipment. The equipment required for a tree-lopping business is not particularly expensive: a couple of chainsaws, a trailer, a chipper, a basic truck to shoot the chippings into, and you are good to go. You could easily set yourself up for somewhere around $150,000, possibly less. You do not need a qualification, which I find extraordinary, and there is nothing to stop you from calling yourself an arborist if you want to in this state—another area, of course, that needs addressing for the sake of ethical expert arborists who do good work for our industry, the community and our environment more broadly.

Whilst the fine might be insignificant, immediate forfeiture of your equipment is another matter, one with the potential to have an immediate impact on that business. This bill adds immediate forfeiture of equipment to the fines which can be issued by the ERD Court. It is hard to run a business removing and chipping trees illegally without the equipment that enables you to do that.

This bill would also give the ERD Court the capacity to order that such equipment can be forfeited to the minister, who then has the discretion to sell it, with moneys from that sale being paid into the Urban Tree Canopy Offset Scheme in the council area where that applies, or directly to the council in areas where that does not apply. Any such funds are to be applied to planting, maintaining or preserving vegetation in that council area where the offence was committed. The bill that I put before this council today also aims to ensure that any moneys that arise from the sale of forfeited equipment are applied to produce a benefit as close as possible to where the illegal removal occurred.

Lastly, the bill seeks to ensure that landholders take responsibility for trees on their property. It is not uncommon to see trees mysteriously die after permission to remove them has been refused. It is impossible to believe that those mysterious deaths that happen after those refusals are always coincidental, or that an unknown third party has somehow unlawfully entered a randomly selected property and poisoned that tree.

South Australia's recent Biodiversity Act is a nation-leading act. The community responses on that bill and that consultation indicated a preference for the strongest possible protections in our state for biodiversity, and it is fair to say many wanted to see that act go further. Whilst urban trees are covered by the Planning and Design Code, they are viewed by community members as essential pillars of our urban biodiversity. Community members rightly recognise that, while planting trees is important, retention of mature and maturing trees should be our priority. They can provide valuable habitat, of course, for species, cool our streets, cool our suburbs, cool our homes, and make the places we live far more liveable.

They are the best tool we have in that toolbox to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and we should really be thinking about the sort of city and suburbs we want our children and grandchildren to live in. The amenity available to future generations, and residents of Greater Adelaide, can be directly influenced by the changes that we debate here in this place and leave as a legacy for them. Stopping dodgy tree loppers in their tracks, stopping them having the equipment to continue to do those illegal, unethical and immoral works, where they are happy to pay a few thousand dollars here or there as a necessary cost of doing business, would be a great step forward. With that, I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.