Remarks on Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Regulated Trees) Amendment Bill.
The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I rise to make some comments in relation to this bill,
brought to this place by the Hon. Mark Parnell. I note that in his contribution he referred to the origins
of it as arising from the very unsatisfactory situation at the Glenside site, where the developer
removed some 83 trees from that site, against the wishes of the local community.
For the record, and just to back up the story a little bit, if you like, the Liberal Party has
remained opposed to the chosen government development for the Glenside site. We believe very
strongly that the remaining open space would continue to be valuable to people with mental health
problems, particularly those suffering from acute problems who would benefit from the green space
and positive impact that would have on their healing. That has been our long stated, oftentimes
repeated position in relation to that. Nevertheless, we were unable to prevent that from happening.
This particular matter was raised at the Environment, Resources and Development
Committee of the parliament in February, at which we had several witnesses, including the member
for Unley, who now represents that area, who again articulated that it was the Liberal Party's position
that we were opposed to it and that we were concerned that the trees were to be removed. In terms
of the sequence of events, the member for Unley expressed particular concern that the development
plans were to remove the trees prior to the particular development that was to replace them having
been properly articulated. His argument, if you like, was that perhaps it should be done in stages so
that the local community could continue to enjoy the benefit of the significant and regulated trees that
What the proponent of this bill is putting to us, if I read it correctly, and he will no doubt correct
me if I have not got this correct, is that in order for significant and regulated trees to be removed the
particular development must be articulated for that site, which we think is a sensible proposal and
therefore we will be supporting this particular measure.