Twyford Phil: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Twyford Phil: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6194] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 We have spent a lot of time in this Chamber over the last few months debating the Auckland super-city and an enormous effort is going into creating governance structures for Auckland. But what do we find? Before the ink is even dry on the second super-city bill this Government—this nanny State Government—is already intervening in a heavy-handed way to take away the powers that local government uses to govern its own communities. I think it was the Prime Minister who said that local decisions should be made locally. The Associate Minister of Local Government will be able to confirm that comment because I have heard him repeating the same idea over and over. But what is happening? The Government is coming over the top with its big boots on and overriding the powers of local government. 
I quote Mr Chris Dempsey who is one of several hundred Aucklanders who has emailed me in the last few days. He says: “Firstly if the National Party would really like to place such a prohibition on enacting policies within district plans then I invite the National Party to write the district plans for every TLA. As I pointed out in my submission to the select committee for central government to interfere nanny-like with how TLAs reach decisions and make policies about things that are important to them then the obligation is on the Government to do the work for the TLAs. The National Party cannot pick and choose. Either the party abides by its beliefs that the local communities know what is best for them or it doesn’t.” I think Mr Dempsey makes a very good point. 
It is worth asking why six out of seven Auckland councils use the general tree protection rules. Why do they? I have some answers. It is because those rules protect trees and because the alternative—listing and scheduling those trees—is impractical and expensive. It is also because democratically elected councillors going about their work and implementing district plans after considerable public input find that those rules are actually the most effective tool open to them for protecting trees. Does that mean anything to National? No it does not. There has been a lot of debate this afternoon about whether this is a strange Auckland phenomenon. Why should Auckland rely on these rules when the rest of the country does not? 
I invite members opposite and the Minister to reflect a moment on why it is the case that six out of seven Auckland councils use these rules. Could it be anything to do with the population density in Auckland where 1.4 million people are crammed into a little isthmus? Could it be anything to do with property prices? Could it be anything to do with the intense development pressures experienced in our country’s biggest city? I invite the Minister to take a drive along the motorway from Fanshawe Street towards the Harbour Bridge and to look up at the cliffs of St Marys Bay. And members should not worry because the Minister is not driving; he is sitting in the back of his limousine. He will see there that rogue developers in the past have taken a chainsaw and cleared the cliff-tops in order to be able to provide a clear view for their clients. That is the kind of development pressure we face in Auckland; Aucklanders know that. 
The existing general tree protection rules have not prevented every mishap of that kind but they have prevented many of them. Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central will have to explain to the good people of Herne Bay Freemans Bay and St Marys Bay why the cliff-tops will lose their pohutukawas after the bill is passed. I have news for the Minister. Once the clause is passed there is no safety net. It will all be over; there will be nothing left to protect the trees of Auckland. Councils have made it very clear that they will not be individually listing trees in anything like the volume that is needed and in a way that currently protects those trees. It is a crazy expensive impractical and bureaucratic approach to solving the problem. 
When the Minister spoke early in the day he was completely disingenuous in claiming that 5000 resource consents every year were needed to deal with the trimming of trees. This debate is not about the trimming of trees but that is what the Minister said. Already in the select committee Labour members and Green members have made it very clear that they are not opposed to lifting some of the restrictions around these provisions but the Minister has rejected a compromise proposal that would have made tree trimming a non-consented activity.