HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2023-10-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Inquiry into the Urban Forest

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:01): I move:

That the second report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into the Urban Forest, be noted.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today to talk about the work of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee on the urban forest inquiry. This is an inquiry that has been going on for some time and it is a pleasure to bring not just a report but a unanimous report from our committee, which is well represented across the political sphere.

Before I get into the recommendations, I would like to start by thanking the committee members. This is a joint house committee and I am very pleased to be working with the member for Davenport and also the member for MacKillop from this place, and also the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Emily Bourke and the Hon. Michelle Lensink from the other place.

They have done remarkable work. There have been a lot of witnesses and quite technical evidence before us and I would like to sincerely thank them for their contributions thus far and continuing. I would also like to thank our secretariat team, our research officer, Dr Amy Mead, and Patrick Dupont, who do a sensational job in the quality of their research and also organisation in terms of keeping us on track and facilitating our expert witnesses coming before the committee.

The origins of this committee stem from the removal of a tree in my own electorate, which really stimulated me to start looking into what our laws are here and what improvements could possibly be made. That particular tree was flagged last year as one that was set for removal. It was on a pretty humble corner block of about 700 square metres in North Plympton, and the tree was positioned actually right on the edge of the block.

At the time, there was a house there but that was demolished, and then even though the house had been demolished, the developer had used the so-called 10-metre rule to just summarily remove a beautiful 80-year-old lemon-scented gum. This certainly stirred up emotions in the local community who really saw that tree as an icon in their community and of course drew attention to the great power that exists in being able to remove a tree with really no good reason.

That tree, unfortunately, only a few months ago was chopped down and the arguments from the community were that there could have been some more creative options taken to build around that tree. That development still would have been able to exist, even quite intense development, on that site without needing to remove a tree that was providing habitat and shade, clean air and beauty to this beautiful suburb of North Plympton.

That was what stimulated me to start looking into this and initiating this inquiry, and I am very lucky to have had the support of the committee to set that up. The process of the committee has been that we have heard quite a lot of evidence so far that has got us to this point of releasing these 15 interim recommendations, which I will go through in a moment, but the intention of the committee is to continue. There is a great deal of further work to be done but, if you like, this is the low-hanging fruit. These are the obvious changes from the evidence that we have heard in person and also in more than 230 submissions that have been put forward to the committee as well.

We took the view that there is no reason to delay and that we wanted to provide feedback to this parliament, to the government and also to the public as soon as possible about measures that can be taken immediately to arrest the quite shocking decline in our urban tree canopy. Many people probably do not know, but about 75,000 trees each year—and that is probably a conservative estimate—are removed from metropolitan Adelaide. They are trees that are not replaced. That is a net loss, and that is a lot of trees.

The tree loss is most acute in inner, urban areas, inner suburbs closer to the CBD. We have also been told that the tree loss is particularly stark on private land. While we are seeing some tree loss on council, state and federal-owned land, really the most rapid decline is happening on private land. You will see that a number of the recommendations are targeted at that. I would just like to acknowledge that the government is already doing quite a lot in this space, but we are hoping that this work will build on what is being done by government agencies and the minister at the moment and further inform that work in the months to come.

As I mentioned earlier, this inquiry is continuing, so the other purpose of releasing these recommendations now is to stimulate public debate and to have organisations and individuals come and give us feedback about these recommendations to further inform the work of the committee. We look forward to hearing from the development sector in particular but also individuals and any other related organisations who might want to have their say on this.

Turning to the recommendations, recommendation 1 goes to that 10-metre rule that I mentioned. We heard that the loss of trees is most acute, as I said, on private land, and the majority of this is happening due to that 10-metre rule. What is this rule? Basically, it says that you do not need a permit or any sort of permission to remove any sort of tree within 10 metres of a swimming pool or a dwelling. The catch with this, though, is that the way it is being applied is that the dwelling or swimming pool may either, in the case of a pool, not be utilised—it may not actually be a functioning, used pool—or, in the case of a house, it may actually have been removed, yet the 10-metre rule is still being applied as if those structures were in place.

This rule was initially conceived to try to provide protection for people and for property, but of course that is being circumvented in some cases. Considering the degree of loss that is going on and the fact that a lot of properties would have almost all their trees come within 10 metres of their dwelling, the committee is recommending that that rule is completely removed and that a merit-based approach is taken instead.

There is also recommendation 1a, which I suppose is a bit of a fallback position, and that is that if the 10-metre rule, in recommendation 1, is not scrapped, then the rule should only be applied where a dwelling or pool is in place at the time of the application and will remain in place thereafter. Also, it should only apply to the property on which the trunk is predominantly located, preventing neighbouring properties from seeking the removal of trees on land that is not in fact their own.

Recommendation 2 is to put together a specialist panel. The committee took quite a lot of evidence about appropriate and inappropriate species and the fact that the list of species that can be automatically removed probably needs a great deal of review. There are species on there that are not in fact pest species or not pest species in certain areas of Adelaide, yet they are still on that list and able to be very easily removed.

What we have heard is that a specialist panel comprising people such as botanists, arborists and environmental scientists should be sitting down and going through this in quite some detail to establish exactly what trees should be on that list and which ones should not. When providing advice, the panel should also consider local implications and the impact on total private canopy if common species are allowed to be destroyed easily.

The third recommendation, which I imagine will attract very little attention but is actually incredibly important, is around research. There is some fantastic work being done, particularly by the University of Adelaide and particularly by Professor Bob Hill and Dr Stefan Caddy-Retalic, who are working on a project called the Future Trees Project. What this is looking at is what future species we are going to need, both existing species that will be more drought-tolerant and more suitable for city environments and also actually developing new species of trees and new hybrids of trees that are going to take us into the coming decades as we face climate change and the threat of disease and increasing density in our city.

That is incredibly exciting work. It deserves the support of our parliament and our government, we feel, to ensure that not only we as decision-makers and policymakers but also the broader sector, such as planners and developers, have evidence-based information on which to choose appropriate species. We really need the right trees being planted in the right place, and that was a refrain that we heard constantly from a range of witnesses.

The fourth recommendation goes to reducing tree circumference. Interstate, tree canopy circumference is taken into account as a critical indicator of the value of a tree—the contribution that it is making environmentally. We are recommending that that becomes a factor in assessing what constitutes a regulated or a significant tree in South Australia as well.

There are different distances and widths that are considered by interstate, so we are encouraging the government to have a look at those interstate models and see what would work best for South Australia. This is really aimed at many of our native species that are actually very thin-trunked but then provide incredible canopies, shade and habitat. They are, however, the subject of removal because they do not reach that two or three-metre threshold for protection.

We have also made recommendations around trunk circumference. There are much tighter definitions of a protected tree interstate. In fact, South Australia is one of the most lax when it comes to our definitions of which trees should be protected. We are recommending a one-metre reduction in each of the types of protected tree, regulated and significant, bringing regulated down to a one-metre circumference and significant down to a two-metre circumference. Those are nice round numbers. We had evidence from the arborists, who said that that would be something that would really be practical and enforceable, though it is not the most ambitious in the nation. Some states go right down to 50 centimetres, at which point their tree protections kick in.

This will save thousands of trees from automatic destruction each year, but it is important to remember that there will still be mechanisms by which to remove trees that may be regulated or significant if, for example, they are posing a threat to structures or to humans, or they may present that threat in future—if they are diseased, for example, or structurally unsound. There may also be other arguments that can be made as to why a tree should be able to be removed.

Recommendation 6 looks at increasing the fees for legal tree removal. If you are seeking to remove a regulated or significant tree at the moment, you do have to pay a fee. The committee has heard that $326 for the removal of a tree would not cut it in terms of replacing that tree. In fact, the estimates that were presented to our committee were in the several thousand dollars that councils are paying to be able to plant a new tree and get it to the point of maturity. That $326 that they are paying for a regulated tree compensation really is not touching the sides when it comes to replacing the trees in the same volume.

We have made some recommendations there to increase the fee for legal removal of regulated and significant trees to $3,000 and $4,000 respectively. I think the other message that sends is that trees are valued in our community. We do not see them as disposable. The evidence that our committee received, and I am sure MPs across this place receive, is that increasingly people do see trees as very valuable and certainly that is not reflected in the fee regime at this stage. We are hoping that this sends a clear message to anyone seeking to remove a tree that they should be finding whatever solutions they can before immediately jumping to the removal of the tree.

Recommendation 7 goes to illegal tree removal fees. The committee heard some detail about a case in the member for Gibson's seat at the old Dover Gardens site and also a case in the member for Bragg's seat in relation to the Auldana North Reserve, where there has been illegal tree removal on private or on council land, which is quite egregious. We are talking about the chainsawing of trees—in the middle of the night in the case of Dover Gardens—and there are investigations going on right at the moment into both of those cases.

It is very difficult to catch people when they illegally remove trees, but we hope these penalty increases—a tenfold penalty increase above the fee paid for legal tree removal—will be a material deterrent to those who would seek to remove trees. No longer will it just be a case of business as usual or a business cost that has to be incurred; this should be a real deterrent to those who would think that they can circumvent our tree laws and remove trees illegally.

We also have the urban forest fund and some community-based tree protections which I am sure I will tell the house about a little later, but I am very eager to hear from other members about their contributions.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (11:16): I want to thank the committee for their work in handing down their urban forest interim report. It is a very thorough report which I think makes some very good recommendations on the whole about how we can better protect and grow our tree canopy. That is an enormously important aim. Our urban tree canopy is something that is highly valued on this side of the house. It is something that cools our suburbs and creates hubs for biodiversity in our suburbs. It improves the livability of our suburbs and we are open to and very much welcome any suggestions that can help grow our canopy.

It is an issue that is raised very regularly with me by my constituents. Indeed, earlier this year I held a series of street-corner meetings with the Leader of the Opposition locally in my electorate to discuss these very issues and some of our own ideas to help protect and grow our tree canopy, many of which have found their way into the committee's report. We very much welcome these ideas.

The previous Liberal government, of course, also valued our tree canopy and actively invested in practical policies that would help grow and preserve our tree canopy: things like the Greener Neighbourhoods Grants, which saw over 10,000 trees planted across metropolitan Adelaide; establishing Green Adelaide with a vision to create a cooler, greener, wilder climate right across our city; and also tasking the State Planning Commission to consider the recommendations in the Conservation Council's series of reports in 2021 and how we can respond to them, many of which again have found their way into this committee's report, which is pleasing to see.

This report is very timely because, as the Chair has acknowledged, our tree protection laws are frankly some of the worst in the country. It is a broken system. Our constituents know that. Residents, I think, get very concerned when they see inconsistencies in the system and the rules not being applied or being broken. As has been pointed out already to the house, it is a system that is clearly not working, because we are seeing a reduction of trees across metropolitan Adelaide; on some estimates we are losing 75,000 trees a year.

I think this problem has existed for the better part of a decade now. Indeed, it was in 2011 that the then Labor government made some fairly significant changes to the way we protect our urban tree canopy in our planning system, and it was at that time that we saw the introduction of a list of tree species that were exempt from controls. We saw the introduction of permitting the unnecessary removal of large trees based on their proximity to dwellings or, as has already been noted, swimming pools as well, and it is at that time that we defined regulated and significant trees by reference to their circumference.

I think this was compounded a little later in 2017 by a Labor government that introduced an urban infill target. When releasing the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide in 2017, it was determined that all new housing—85 per cent of all new housing—would be built within the existing urban footprint, and what we saw was a great acceleration of urban infill in Adelaide's established neighbourhoods.

Indeed, I note that the committee's report says the genesis of this whole inquiry was concerns about the effect of residential subdivisions, urban infill, and higher density living on the declining tree canopy in metropolitan Adelaide. When we have unrestrained urban infill, unfortunately we lose open space. We have block sizes that are covered by buildings, and we see many established trees being removed to build, and I think the urban infill target had a lot of impact on that.

At the same time as introducing an urban infill target of 85 per cent in 2017, the then Labor government also had a goal to increase Adelaide's urban tree canopy by 20 per cent by 2030. Sadly, that is a goal we have not met, but I think it is a goal that is also inconsistent with the 85 per cent urban infill target that was introduced at the very same time.

I do welcome many of the recommendations in this report, particularly recommendations about reviewing the list of exemptions and better defining what we value as significant and regulated trees. I think some of the recommendations in this report will need to be scrutinised in the fullness of time, particularly around very severe penalties for legally removing trees.

I acknowledge the committee's intention to try to better value what a tree is worth, but I think we also need to acknowledge that at times there are legitimate reasons why people might need to remove a tree. We should be cautious of punishing those people, and we should be cautious of increasing their costs and potentially increasing the cost of housing as well. I also think there is a danger that if we increase the fee for the legal removal of trees what we might see is the encouraging of more illegal removal of trees, which is something we want to avoid.

I welcome recommendations cracking down on the illegal removal of trees. As has already been noted in the house, my own electorate has been affected by the issue of illegal removal or illegal poisoning of trees at various reserves and private properties, so I welcome cracking down with tough penalties for doing that. However, I think we need to be cautious about legally removing trees and increasing the cost of doing so.

I do welcome many of these recommendations. Ultimately, though, it is not me that the committee will need to convince; it will be the environment minister and the local government minister and, perhaps most importantly, the planning minister, who as recently as yesterday in this house doubled down on his urban infill strategy and his high-density living strategy, including the 30-storey high-rise towers in Glenside. You are going to need to convince him that the urban tree canopy is valuable. We know it is valuable, but please try to convince the minister for urban infill that it is valuable as well.

He also has sitting on his desk the expert panel review into the Planning System Implementation Review. The shadow minister made a submission to that review. Many of the ideas in this committee report were in that submission. I made a submission on behalf of my constituents to that review and, again, many of the ideas in this report were in that submission. That has now been sitting on the minister's desk for six months. I would very much like to see it, and I would like to see him listen to many of the recommendations that the committee has suggested here.

In short, thank you for the report. We welcome many of the recommendations; we just hope the government can listen to the committee.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (11:25): The preservation of our tree canopy in South Australia and the crucial need to strike the right balance between housing and greening has never been more important. I have been very grateful to be part of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and to play a role in this important inquiry that looks to protect and grow our tree canopy. As we just heard from the Chair, the member for Badcoe, more than 75,000 trees are lost across metropolitan Adelaide every year and not replaced, with most of that destruction coming from development on private land in the metro area and from infill.

During the inquiry, we had the privilege of speaking with an expert line-up of South Australians who helped us to examine what is happening to the tree canopy in our state and what actions are required to protect the future of our trees. I would particularly like to acknowledge Green Adelaide and Professor Chris Daniels, Tom Morrison of 20 Metre Trees, and the many local groups, state departments and councils that made their submissions.

Currently, South Australia has some of the weakest tree protection laws in the country, and this is playing a role in the consistent loss of canopy across our metro areas. As we all know, trees offer so many benefits: purifying the air that we breathe, mitigating the effects of climate change through absorbing carbon dioxide, providing shade and cooling and therefore reducing energy consumption, and enhancing mental wellbeing. We are hearing more and more about the mental wellbeing benefits of green communities.

In South Australia also, our unique flora holds a deep cultural and historical significance connecting us to our roots and defining our identity. But as we all know, there is a demand for housing in our state that will only continue to grow, so we face a pressing challenge: how do we accommodate this growth without sacrificing our green spaces? The answer lies in finding a delicate balance between development and preservation.

Our cityscapes need to be thoughtfully designed to incorporate green spaces and safeguard our existing trees. This involves integrating trees into our urban planning, ensuring green corridors and enforcing stringent regulations that preserve our tree canopy. In seeking that right balance, we need to look at innovative solutions: building around our beautiful trees, green roofs, vertical gardens and sustainable architecture. We need to be planting the right trees too.

We need a comprehensive approach that considers the needs of today without compromising the needs of tomorrow. The committee's initial recommendations look to:

tighten the definition of regulated and significant trees to protect more mature trees from needless destruction;

increase fees for legal and illegal removal of protected trees;

establish a new urban forest fund, to channel money into the parts of our state that really need it; and

encourage investment in identifying through research the appropriate tree species and to identify climate-resilient tree species.

There is, of course, more that we can do to foster public awareness and engagement. We should encourage tree-planting initiatives, community gardens and education programs—all things that highlight the importance of trees in our daily lives. As the committee Chair, the member for Badcoe said:

No-one wants to live in a concrete jungle. More and more Adelaideans are asking that trees in our suburbs are better protected from development.

I commend this report and its 15 recommendations, and look forward to continuing to consult on those recommendations and the future recommendations to come.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:29): I, too, rise to speak and welcome the recommendations in this report and share some experiences as a member representing an inner suburban area that has been a prime target of developers for urban infill. One of the things that I think most annoys everybody who lives in Unley, who out of curiosity or for any other reason watches the real estate website, is that they see a block of units or even a brand new house or two houses where there was one, and it is advertised as being this beautiful opportunity to live in 'tree-lined Unley' or 'tree-lined Fullarton' or 'tree-lined Goodwood', but of course there is not a single tree on the block. They are relying on the trees in the blocks surrounding those developments.

Every year, Unley is losing around four Unley Ovals of tree canopy from private land. I welcomed, and the Liberal Party actually has a policy of supporting, the plan that was designed and driven by Mayor Michael Hewitson, to have a differential rate for people who do not have 15 per cent tree canopy on their properties after an application development. It does not affect people who have lived in their homes for 30 years. It does not affect people who might be doing some work on their garden, but if they put in a development application to bulldoze a building and put two or three up in that space, or if they put in an application for a pool or a large extension, they will then trigger the requirement for them to have a 15 per cent tree canopy coverage at three metres from the ground.

That is measured annually. There is a company that flies over the City of Unley and photographs and measures the tree canopy. That is on your rate notice every quarter, so everybody has an idea or they understand their own tree canopy, and it is great. I know many constituents are excited to see that their tree canopy has grown from the last rates notice. They are not quite as excited about the increase in their rates from the last rates notice, but they are certainly excited about the increase in their tree canopy. So there is a lot of community support for this program in the City of Unley.

The City of Unley is looking for permission from the planning minister to go out and consult on this program, and the planning minister has refused to do so, despite being offered bipartisan support from the opposition. The Liberal party room endorsed this program close on 12  months ago now, I think, and wrote to the council and put out a press release. The ministers were not very well aware that there is no political risk in supporting this, but the council still has not received permission to go out and consult on this program in the City of Unley.

I think one of the things that I would like to see in the consideration of these recommendations is not the idea of a single payment for removal of a tree or destruction of a tree but an ongoing annual payment. The problem we have with a single payment is that you have actually given someone a licence to keep their garden bare. They have paid the money. Whether it is $500 or $5,000, they have paid it and it is done. So you are never going to get that tree canopy back, because people feel as though now that they have paid for it they are entitled to have that slab of concrete or that extra bit of building in their garden instead of that tree, whereas what is good about the City of Unley program is that every year you have an opportunity to reduce your rates by increasing your tree canopy by planting trees.

If you remove a tree and you put another one in it might not be at that 15 per cent immediately, but maybe in three or four years' time it will reach that 15 per cent and then you will be in line with that reduction in your rates, to support you in your contribution to tree canopy on private land in the City of Unley.

I think I will warn the government that having a one-off fee will have very little impact. People will just build that into the cost of their developments and build it into the cost of their extensions. But with an annual fee—a plan very much like what the City of Unley is offering—if new owners come in they may very well see that as an opportunity to reduce their annual rates and they might then decide to plant that tree. The developers will probably be more innovative in the way they design buildings on tight sites to enable a tree canopy to develop, and that would be a selling point because it would mean lower rates for that particular development compared to what it would be otherwise.

I know the member for Badcoe raised recommendation 1 and recommendation 1a. We did see a shocking example of the abuse of the current rules in the Australian Education Union development on Greenhill Road. That went before the SCAP just a couple of weeks ago, and the day that it appeared before the SCAP the AEU organised Saw Doctors to come in, tree fellers to come in, and remove a significant tree that was within 10 metres of a building they owned that had been abandoned for 20 years and no-one was living in. It was to be removed before even the approval was given, and guess what? On that day the approval was rejected by the SCAP.

It does not happen very often that the SCAP rejects that. It was rejected on 10 grounds because it was such a bad development—10 grounds. It did not have enough car parking, it was 30 per cent higher than the planning code for that place, it had no public open space with the required amount of sunlight during the winter solstice for residents, and it threw shadows over people living directly behind it on the south side of the building. It did not even have consideration for dealing with waste removal.

This was a shocking development. The AEU had formed a partnership with a fellow by the name of Dean Hall, a former CFMEU official, who has established a business in the—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It just keeps going. It just keeps going. He has formed a business of—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is more.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham! Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Unions right throughout Australia are identifying old assets that they can develop with private sector developers to make money. So the CFMEU has finally discovered the private enterprise system. We have not seen this style of development in Australia.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Cheltenham!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We saw that there were styles that the developers pointed to. They pointed to some examples in Victoria, but the very diligent residents in Parkside were able to identify that and none of those have been built, they were just proposed. It is no wonder that this was amateur hour when it came to the Australian Education Union exploiting current rules about protecting trees, because they needed the space where that tree was. They wanted to put a building, and they wanted to get rid of that while there was a building that they owned within 10 metres of that tree.

I am very keen to see the government's response to these recommendations. I congratulate the committee on their work.

Ms HUTCHESSON (Waite) (11:39): I want to thank the member for Badcoe, who continues to battle important issues, for this incredibly important report, and also the members of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. My community is incredibly interested in the outcome of this report and the outcome of the planning review, as we live in one of the greenest areas and we want to try to maintain that. Tree protection, urban canopy cover and the importance of being able to breathe clean air and provide habitat and biodiversity are all important to members of my community.

In 1836, colonists arrived in South Australia to a Garden of Eden, a land nurtured by the Kaurna people for 60,000 years and I will take this moment to respect their cultural beliefs and attachments to the land. The first thing that happened when the colonists arrived was that they cleared the land. Adelaide was virtually a treeless plain. My question is: are we heading there again now as we see an alarming rate of clearance to build houses, roads, swimming pools and all sorts of other things?

In the 1870s, no-one cared about trees. That was until the arrival of Adelaide's first town planner, Petzer, who was also a conservator. He devoted the next 30 years to systematically line every thoroughfare with a range of large and stately trees and promoted backyard plantings. In 1890, we realised that trees were far more important in the ground than on the fire. I found an article from June 1889 about South Australia's first Arbor Day, and I would like to share a few paragraphs from it. 'Our First Arbor Day', from the South Australian Register, stated the following:

The American institution of 'Arbor Day' is, as from to-day, [20 June 1889] established in this colony. A proportion of the pupils in our State schools go out to plant trees, and those of them who are not selected to do the planting have a place reserved for them. The Adelaide children start with a great flourish of trumpets from Victoria-square. Each school will be preceded by its band. The singers go before, the planters—who are to be decorated with rosettes—follow after. When the procession arrives on the ground the elect children, who are to plant trees, will be separated from their less favoured brethren. The schools will be divided into 'squads'—the planting squad and the non-planting squad. The planting squad is to be arranged with due care—one child to each hole. It may be hoped that a certain amount of fitness will be observed, and that every square hole will command the attendance of a square child. When the word is given, the trees will be planted, a great celebration will be over, and the children of the schools will have received a lesson on the value of aboriculture.

It goes on to say:

The forestry influence is happily strong upon us in South Australia, and we are inclined to regard the man or the boy who plants a tree in the light of a benefactor of the human race. It is a trite saying that the man who has made two blades of grass grow where only one grew before is worthy of all honour, and the same is certainly true of trees in this colony.

Mr Telfer: John Rau.

Ms HUTCHESSON: Well, I am not sure he was around then. It continues:

It must be not forgotten, however, that the mere planting of a tree in a ready-made hole will not go far towards making a nation. What will do more in that direction is the digging of the hole and the finding of the proper tree to plant. It would be a good thing to have the waste places of the colony covered with planes, or oaks, or pines, or whatever trees are best adapted to the condition of the case. In the city and round about it there are innumerable places where the addition of one or more trees would be a distinct advantage. The presence of trees tends to modify the climate, and, if they are fruit-trees, they are things to be desired and calculated to make one comfortable in summer. It ought indeed be possible to improve upon the plan of having a cut-and-dried ceremony like that of to-day. Why should it not be made a practice in all parts of the colony for all children capable of doing so to do the whole work connected with the planting of a tree?...

For ourselves we heartily approve of the policy of planting trees wherever circumstances are favourable. To educate children to take an interest in the work is to inculcate in them a sense of the value of trees and to inspire in them a conviction of the importance of the science of forestry. In this view it is a pleasure to us to hope the best things of this the first Arbor Day in South Australia. We are bound to look to the rising generation for the cultivation and nourishment of the trees which they plant this morning. To their interest in them we must look for the protection and care of the plantations, and if today's ceremony had only this result it will not have been held in vain. But we may well expect more from it. The children know very well that their interest is not claimed merely on belief of a sentiment. They will at least be taught to attach value to the object for whose sake they are marshalled in holiday array and relieved from the cares [of their schooling].

It is pretty interesting that so long ago we actually cared about trees. Hopefully we can care about trees again today. Arbor Day still continues today. In fact, in Upper Sturt it started in 1906, and last week they had an Arbor Day. Schools Planting Day also still exists. These things still exist, and they are important and hopefully can continue.

In 1889, we understood that trees were important, and by 1930 the Adelaide Plains were the largest forest in the state. Fast-forward to 2023 and the trees are, once again, being cleared at an alarming rate as we seek to fit more houses on one block, feel the need to fill one block with a bigger house with no garden, and we build roads everywhere.

In Glenalta, where I grew up, from 2011 to 2021, the urban canopy cover reduced from 94 to just 55 hectares, that is a 40 per cent loss. The Belair National Park is in our area, so you can imagine where the loss has come from. However, work is now being done by this government through this inquiry and also through the review of the State Planning Code. As written by Waite local and City of Mitcham Councillor Tom Morrison in his research aptly named A Call to Action: Protecting Adelaide's Tree Canopy:

Once again, we have a chance to turn around our tree loss. Action now will lay the foundation for the future. We want to leave a legacy for future generations to reap the benefits of a green, liveable city resilient to the effects of climate change.

Tom Morrison is an incredible advocate for greening our state, and he lives in Glenalta. In 2017 he set up the 20 Metre Trees Facebook page at just 21 years of age, and I want to thank him for his tireless work and his submissions to this inquiry and many like it in the past.

In 1889, our kids were taught the value of trees, so what has happened since? A tree on its own is a beautiful thing, but it is the collection of them that provides the biggest benefit: benefit to our health, the planet's health, biodiversity, and it provides a cooling effect and assists with the effects of climate change, assisting in slowing it. Trees provide oxygen and they are good for our mental health. Many members of my community have made submissions to this inquiry and I know they have helped form many of the recommendations.

I understand that living in a bushfire risk area some residents have fears of trees, and it can be the case that it is actually the canopy cover that can protect their homes when there is an ember attack, but it is the understorey where the problem lies, and I look forward to further work from the committee on how they are going to address areas of high bushfire risk.

In terms of the recommendations of the committee, there are probably just a couple that I would like to comment on. The tightening of the definition of regulated significant trees to protect more mature trees from needless destruction is incredibly important. In my community, on Wilpena Street we saw a house that had numerous trees at the front of it. The developer cut down the trees that were within 10 metres of the home and then planned to demolish the home, move the home and cut down the rest. These are the things that we cannot allow to continue.

In Coromandel Valley, the owner of a business wanted to cut down a fully established and fully regulated tree just because it was making his car park undulated. It was probably more the case that the car park had not been maintained particularly well in the past. Thankfully, Onkaparinga council prevented that from happening.

It is the case that this committee's report does go a long way to helping, and I hope that we are able to have a look at the recommendations and that they line up with a lot of the things that will come out of the planning review as well. In my area, and for the people who live in my community, tree protection is a number one priority that we have. I want to thank the Presiding Member for her hard work, along with her committee, and all of the staff for the outcomes.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Waite, including that interesting historical detail.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:48): I rise to briefly lend my support and make some observations about the importance of trees, and an appreciation of the tradition of Arbor Day that has been referred to by the member for Waite just now, in the particular context of the Parklands. It is true that it took the best part of 100 years before the South Australian colonists came around to the notion that the Parklands were something that ought to be the subject of considered treatment in terms of trees and the beautiful space. It was for many decades in the early colonial era, of course, as much a utilitarian space—we saw large cattle yards and a place for animals to rest in between times, and so on, and so it is a myth to think that this threat to canopy is somehow this modern concept.

At times in the colonial history, we have been the removers of trees in large swathe far and wide but certainly not least in the centre, in the Parklands. But we have also seen times during that modern era of concerted development and improvement of those areas, and an appreciation for trees, indeed, for the Parklands and for botanic gardens. I draw the link between those two most significant sites in terms of botanic gardens in the state, the botanic gardens on North Terrace and the botanic gardens at Mount Lofty, both of which reflect research, study, interest and the application of values that are consistent with urban and human living space greening.

So I urge the continued appreciation for what can be known about that history of study and inquiry that is on display in those two magnificent botanic gardens areas and, as the member for Waite has adverted, the advent of appreciation for planned trees, urban tree canopy and an active engagement in that environment in an urban space that goes back not in a linear way but to an episode a long time post colonialisation that really set that off.

Then here we are seeing a committee that has moved to look at the modern phenomenon of a threat that with urban infill you have a lack of appreciation for canopy and a risk—advertent or otherwise—that you suddenly find yourself in an environment where particularly the inner urban areas find themselves rapidly treeless through a planning and development process.

As I am often describing it in the nanosecond at which I was honoured to be in the role of planning minister, I had the opportunity to look closely at what the shape of the Parklands and its history is and ought to be. One of the decisions of which I am most proud in that very short period of time was the decision I made immediately prior to Christmas in 2021 in relation to the zoning and planning around the Riverbank Precinct. It involved, for me, having a very focused look at all that has gone on in terms of, first, natural environment and early colonial history, and then the advent of an appreciation for what greening and arbour looks like in that space.

In the same nanosecond, just to highlight one in particular, I recognise the passionate—I think is the word to describe in the context of local government—representations particularly from the Mayor of Unley, who made a key focus of his work engaging with the development process to try to think about innovative ways that we can introduce incentives for greening in the course of planning and development and introduce ways in which the tree canopy in inner urban areas can be valued and built into the process of planning and subdivision. Of course, that is the central topic for the inquiry.

If I just make some further, minor distinction in drawing the comparison between the two botanic gardens, the Mount Lofty one and the city one, when I look from a parochial perspective from the area that I represent in the Adelaide Hills and Heysen to the urban tree canopy challenge, I think one might anecdotally say that we have plenty where I am, and we at times can say we are happy to donate a few.

There are challenges in different areas, of course. Those that affect us in the near urban—the peri-urban and inner regional areas of the Hills and the extended areas of Heysen—include a capacity to be able to manage for better health our trees and tree canopy, to manage weeds, to ensure there is not a growing fire risk associated with a lack of management of the natural vegetation and to know what to do to make sure that trees that have been planted through colonial history are looked after so that we have that healthy diversity in an area that has been largely intervened with over the last century or so.

There are wonderful works that are going on in terms of friends of parks and so on through that area, but that is then to somewhat divert from the core subject matter of the committee's work. I commend the work. I will look forward to hearing about the government's consideration of this committee's work.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:57): I might just round up by drawing the parliament's attention to the recommendation around the urban forest fund. This comprises three recommendations, 8, 9 and 10, but basically what this is designed to do is to ensure that the money that has been collected from fees and fines is going directly back into building our canopy. That is absolutely essential. We not only need to replace what is being lost but we need to rapidly accelerate the planting and the growth of our urban forest.

There is an important recommendation there as well in relation to an annual report to the parliament so that this place has a better idea of what is being lost, what is being replaced and how that money that has accumulated is being spent in our community. So I think that is an important recommendation. Lastly, recommendations 11, 12 and 13 are targeted at educating our community but also equipping some of our incredibly hardworking and effective volunteer organisations to be able to do what they do and have greater access to the grants that are available.

Myth busting is so important. We have heard quite a lot of evidence about the public's perceptions about the dangers of trees simply not being borne out in evidence. When the real risks associated with trees are pointed out to people, they are often quite surprised. So there is work to be done there in terms of educating our community so that we do have as a community more of an attitude that embraces trees rather than sees them as a threat.

So a great deal of public education work needs to be done there. One of the key recommendations, which interestingly ties in very well with the member for Waite's contribution, is to put a huge emphasis on Arbor Day. In other states, particularly Queensland and WA, there is a focus on Arbor Day, particularly through schools but also throughout the entire community. So there is a recommendation there which I hope the government will take up, which is targeted at additional funding and facilitation of Arbor Day and all the good work it can do in heightening the value of trees in our community and busting some of those myths. There is probably a role for Green Adelaide in administering that and delivering the program as well.

I would also like to point out that some of our grants programs at the moment are not as accessible to community groups as they should be, and one of the recommendations goes to that, as well, so that those groups with quite sizeable volunteer workforces can deliver those benefits for our broader community.

As I said, no-one wants to live in a concrete jungle, and more and more Adelaideans are asking this parliament to act. I hope that this report will not only add to the discussion but actually stimulate real action by this government. I call on the minister to have a look at these recommendations and make them real. Thank you to all the speakers today.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT