Dear Minister Hargreaves, dear Representative Hargreaves,
Re: your fax of 23 Mar '07 to Mr Roland Manderson,
Re: Mr Manderson's 'green' representation to you on 27 Feb,
Re: undesired proposed removal of trees adjacent to 9/53 Banks.
A preliminary caution: the following may not be couched in the most diplomatic of terms or sentiment, but I have neither the time and/or money - nor the inclination - to fancify any 'message.' I write as a citizen to my representative and public servants; I should not have to beg or sugar-coat, OK?
Over the years we've had the pleasure of living right on the Southern edge of the Canberra Plan (a site chosen by us quite on purpose, to be so on that edge), starting out as we meant to go on, surrounded by a wonderful if somewhat small 'forest' of our native Eucalyptus (aka 'Eucas') - also part of our raison d'être. Then, largely unconnected to the foregoing, we have 'enjoyed' from time to time seeing representatives of the ACT Conservation Service passing by our once idyllic block, presumably occupied with performing their various official ministrations. Occasionally one would dally, and exchange pleasantries with yours truly.
Unfortunately, usually within days or sometimes even only hours of such a 'Conservation conversation' or sighting, we have suffered the loss of one or more members of our once-dense little forest. To the extent, in fact, that we are no longer 'surrounded,' but rather now merely occasionally accompanied by the odd tree. Yeah. And due to another of the policies apparently sanctioned by our so-called Conservationists, the natural wardah®-flow (Aussie slang for 'water flow') past our block has been interrupted; that plus the looong drought has led to the death of a few of the remaining, now sparse and spindly Eucas.
Don't you find it just that little bit odd, Minister Hargreaves, that your Conservation Service doesn't actually seem to conserve much (if anything at all; at least as seen from here), but is often seen to destroy, or have destroyed, many, far too many trees, allowed on their say-so, if not by their direct order? And whilst I'm posing the odd question or two, do you agree with my view of the democratic covenant supposedly existing between me as an elector, and you as my representative? I quote myself; the democratic covenant: by tautology, a representative supposedly represents his constituents. I interpret this to mean 'represents the will of a majority of constituents,' with the qualification 'while protecting the interests of the minority.' I would add "And don't do anything I wouldn't do!" (Like chop down any of our lovely trees.) Hmmm, representative Hargreaves? I believe I must be either part of some majority, in which case you should be implementing my will, or part of some minority, in which case you are supposed to be protecting my interest. Here I define part of my will/interest as being allowed to live in peace, surrounded by the natural environment as existing, and not some tree-less desert created by your administrative fiat.
Of course, I'm hoping that you'll excuse my excitability; but our little forest is starting to look like a five-year old's grin. However, we ourselves are not smiling. And rather than a five-year old's grin, our once-dense little forest will probably look a bit like the Gungahlin Drive construction-site, if the current proposed round of tree-removal is allowed to proceed. If you were to ask me (and even if you were too shy to ask, I'm willing to inform you 'for free'); I'd opine that I'd rather not see your Conservation Service hanging around any where near our block, nor hear a single one of your contracted chain-saw melodies - if you don't mind. In other words, could you please ask your 'boys' to go play somewhere else for a while? Even to forget entirely and forever, where 9/53 Banks might be?
Long story short: could you please restrain your Conservation Service, and leave our trees alone? I can't know if you've heard about it, but apparently there's a strong possibility, now thought to be approaching 100%, that a greenhouse climate catastrophe is bearing down on us on a searing blast of fossil-fuel sourced CO2; we really could do with every single remaining transpiring leaf.
And finally and not so by-the-way, even our 'famous' PM is now $200mio into saving trees. Honestly. Leaving our trees alone could even attract a subsidy, so why not ask him?
Thanks in advance if I never, ever see another Conservation Service uniform,
yours faithfully,
Phil Kendall
PS
1. Public safety? If in fear or doubt, you could put up a warning sign. Especially in case of fear.
2. Mistletoe? Don't make me laugh. Yeah, we got Mistletoe. I approached the Department. They said "Haw! How many trees do you think we've got? Millions!" Then one of them offered to come over with a shotgun, with which to blast the Mistletoe down. And what would our birdies think of that, eh?
PK
