The punishment for felling Australia’s foreshore trees is a mere pittance against developers’ obscene profits

I have a dream. It’s all about the day on which the first of Sydney’s antisocial tree vandals cops a truly punitive fine or, better still, prison time as they more likely would if they’d so cynically destroyed private property or public infrastructure just for the sake of a water view.

The next best thing, for the time being anyway, is hearing that another stolen view for which hundreds of native trees were wilfully lopped has been retributively denied to one more narcissistic environmental felon.

The epidemic of illegal tree felling to enhance views, especially around Sydney Harbour, is perhaps the ultimate in “FU society” acts of wealthy entitlement. So when a local council responds with a sucker punch (as Lane Cove council has, like others, to an appalling act of environmental terrorism last year by obscuring the view with a giant banner), the many of us who are fond of urban trees can’t help but spontaneously cheer from the cheaper seats.

Sydney is a city of sea and vivid light. Any of us with the bodily ability and access to public transport can walk by the sparkling ocean or the azure harbour, just as we can delight in the majesty of the national parks surrounding the place or in the maze of copses of ancient figs, eucalypts and casuarinas on our public suburban spaces.

But Sydney is also a city of glaring social, economic and housing inequality, a place of startling rapacity and greed as evidenced by its long history of widespread alleged and established corruption involving developers and authorities. It is the Australian city that wears the disproportionate wealth of its few more ostentatiously than any other.

Such exclusive conspicuous wealth is manifest in many ways, not least in cars and boats – but particularly in waterside property where the sea is visible from the house. Just a mere “glimpse’’ (forgive the real estate agent parlance) of Whiteley-esque harbour or bridge from the corner of the upstairs dunny window can bring enormous extra value to a Sydney house, while an expansive view can literally add millions to a waterfront palace. Trees just get in the way even though they were there first – often by hundreds of years.

But such is the avarice of some developers that they apparently arrogantly bake in the piddling cost of any modest potential fine and reputational damage for felling publicly owned trees. They know they are unlikely to be caught and if they do the fines will be a pittance against their obscene profits. Jail? Don’t be ridiculous. They’re just trees ...

Councils can issue on-the-spot fines for illegal tree removals of $3,000 for individuals and $6,000 for businesses if they can prove culpability. But prosecutions in the New South Wales land and environment court, where the maximum fine for tree removal by an individual is $220,000, are notoriously hard to achieve.

Pacific nations want ecocide to become a crime – here’s why NZ should support the proposal

The recent proposal by Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa to recognise ecocide as a crime against humanity is timely and could provide a global framework of accountability for environmental damage.

Ecocide is defined as acts of “unlawful or wanton” environmental destruction, committed in the knowledge of their likely severe, widespread or long-term effects.

Last week, the Pacific Island nations formally requested an amendment to the principal treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to add ecocide alongside genocide, war crimes and aggression to the international community’s list of most serious crimes.

There is a long way to go before ecocide is recognised by the ICC, if it ever happens. Discussions of the proposal will likely take several years and much will depend on the level of support the proposal gains from the 124 countries party to the ICC.

But for Aotearoa New Zealand, this is a chance to champion a progressive legal response and show leadership in the region.