Stevenlmeyer assumed that there is indeed a risk from those old figs.

Steven, the solution to the "problem" is to first truly understand it. Council, or at least some members thereof, wanted the trees removed for other reasons than elf'n'safety. Because they were there. Because they blocked the view across the park. Because they dropped leaves and fruits. Because they harboured birds.

The tool of choice was the risk assessment. Death by risk assessment followed.

I have read the expert's RA and I am very familiar with complex RA's - for decades they have been part of my life. This one was loaded against the trees. For example, the assumption that because when a tree falls (eg in a high wind) it may kill someone standing beneath it. X number of trees, Z metres of path, thus each tree falling would obliterate Z/X metres of pedestrians. Ignored was whether pedestrians would be out and about during extreme weather: they would not be. Or whether someone in a tree's target area may be injured or escape or run for cover. No, they were assumed to have died outright.

This tool was essentially a big lie, yet it served its purpose.

Similarly, I don't know much about Leadbeater's Possum, but when experts say that it is declining and a person who identifies only as a forester disagree, then I must back the one who has no skin in the game, the expert.