Chatswood Hills State School Tree Issues| NT school tree kills boy and were advised!

Eric Frei

Another tree fell in the NT school where the boy was killed, post 7 covers the original story of that school.

Another tree falls at St Mary's | News | NT News | Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia | ntnews.com.au

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

Snozzle

Regarding the post which mentions that the school felled all the "mahoganies" after Aidan Bott was killed. The Coroner's Report: in paragraphs 87-89 the arborist Mr William (“Bill”) Sullivan, who the Coroner accepted as an expert, said, in effect, that the first mahogany had problems of a singular nature..."African Mahogany Tree as a species was no more dangerous than any other sort of tree, however it required regular maintenance and regular management to reduce its risk". Here, the crown though green was brittle partly because the paving around the tree prevented absorption of water and oxygen by the tree's roots. The Coroner also said that the tree was not inspected for almost three years - a "dangerously lengthy period".

How typical that a school authority should adopt "defensive" tree management practices like "punishing" the affected tree ("affected" because it was the lack of pervious paving and lack of maintenance, acts or omissions by the tree's owner - that helped create the hazard). In addition they punished all the trees of that species when it is clear the species was not the problem - the management was the problem.

This behaviour is typical of education departments Australia-wide. Whether it is adopting merely reactive tree maintenance such as only servicing fallen branches or fallen trees, as they do over in WA, or failing to do pro-active maintenance, or in a panic after an incident, punishing a tree or a species, the bottom line is always the same: cost-cutting to save a buck. Yet corporate and managerial salaries and benefits are seldom subject to the same regime.

Why use the excuse that trees (obviously due to their wild, untamed and inherently hazardous nature - another mistaken perspective) are liable to fall over without warning, so pro-active maintenance is a waste of resources? No joke this is official policy in some local councils along the coast here in NSW. But...ask yourself...would you fly with an airline that only maintained and repaired their planes AFTER an incident, on the grounds that they sometimes fall out of the sky for no reason?

Finally, I ask, this may be taken as an attack...but considering the most vulnerable and precious lives of the voiceless (our children) are involved in the debate... is it appropriate, accurate and to the point? Personally, I reckon negligence is a more "terrible word" than diatribe. You decide.