Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6187] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Self-sown or planted raised and nurtured by the landowner or growing up naturally through the canopy cover above. Growing over dozens of years sometimes hundreds of years sometimes thousands of years they emerge to provide shelter and shade. They provide stability for our soils they prevent erosion and slipping. They fertilise they attract rain they hold moisture they provide beauty wilderness amenity and view. They refresh our souls as well as our waters. Trees. They are slow to grow quick to go. 
At the heart of the debate lies this paradox. There are two competing views of the ownership of these things called trees. On the one side is a party that believes that ownership is entirely individual and entirely temporal and therefore every individual should have the ultimate right to cut them down. On this side we have a party that believes that trees are part of our birthright that we give to other generations and are also something that we own collectively as well as individually. In recognition of that broader view some communities around New Zealand have joined together to agree rules that everybody in that community should stand by in the way that they either protect or decide to chop down a tree. Clause 52 amends section 76 of the Resource Management Act to prohibit any rule in a district plan from providing for the protection of any tree or group of trees in an urban environment. It is an act of prohibition against any community deciding that there is a common interest in maintaining those trees. Clause 151 requires any council to remove rules from the district plan by 1 January 2012 conveniently after the next general election which probably explains why the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that at least scores the unrestricted trimming of a tree immediately on the passage of this bill before the next general election just in case National does not win it. 
Here we come to another fascinating political point. In the life of any Government there are some key moments moments when in its arrogance it puts its big boot right in the organic matter and this is one of those moments just as it was on adult and community education cuts and just as it was when the public decided that it was revolted by Rodney Hide’s minimalist vision of a local government agenda. On this issue inboxes are clogged with hundreds and hundreds of emails from Aucklanders who say that it is not the Government’s right to override their democratically elected councils that have put in place rules that the majority stand for. Here is the problem. This is an active override by central Government over local democracy from a party that campaigned against the nanny State! This is the chainsaw State the bulldozer State driving its way through local government rules. It is the party of liberty crushing bottom-up democracy—go figure! That is what these tree provisions are really about. 
This is a bill that was supposed to streamline and simplify but whose only solution to the trees issue is to create a mountain of bureaucratic red tape by requiring that every tree or—maybe just maybe especially if Lynne Pillay’s amendment goes through—group of trees has to be individually scheduled by the council creating a trail of paperwork and further consultation. They say the blanket rules are too bureaucratic so we are going to get 100000 little individual rules for each tree. One of the members opposite raised the subject of Timaru. I grew up not far from there. That is the kind of place where if people are driving along an empty country road and see another car they wave because they never know whether it is the last car they will see. It is not hard to protect an individual tree in Timaru; there are not too many of them. But it is a totally different scenario in Waitakere where I now have the privilege of living. In Waitakere there are hundreds of thousands of trees. It is completely impractical to do individual scheduling or even small group scheduling of trees and many properties and many dwellings exist in the bush. 
There is a ridiculously inequitable state of affairs in these clauses because they apply only to urban trees and urban councils. That says that rural people—is that because they vote National more often—must love their trees more or would be more sensible. Is that the hidden agenda here? Why should urban people not have the right to join together through a democratically elected council and protect their native flora? It does not make any sense it is inequitable and it is unnecessary because streamlining is an operational matter. It does not need to be a legislative matter. If it is the Greens have an amendment that quite rightly allows for improved trimming and provides for on-the-spot consenting processes and we believe that there is a lot of potential there to find a good middle ground. We are not opposed to streamlining but we believe that these provisions take the Act in the opposite direction. 
The legislation is unethical. It manifests an extreme individualism. It says “The tree on my property is mine alone. It doesn’t matter if it took 200 years to grow. It doesn’t matter if I am a blink in the eye of the life of the tree. It doesn’t matter if as well as being on my property it provides shade or stability for the properties beside me above me or below me on the hill and it doesn’t matter if removing it might cause erosion or a slip. That does not matter. It does not matter if it is part of a view. It doesn’t matter if it is part of a line of pohutukawa along the coast. That does not matter because it is mine alone.” That is the kind of individualism that ordinary New Zealanders do not buy into. 
Labour will be vigorously opposing these tree provisions and we will be moving three amendments to remove or reduce them. Phil Twyford will be moving amendments to strip those offending provisions from the bill because they are wrong and they should go. At the very least they should be deferred into the second tranche of the Resource Management Act reforms so that the Government has time to properly consult. If National is a party of consultation then let it be true to its word. I will be moving an amendment to exempt the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area established by this Parliament not a year ago after 30 years’ work and supported by 81 percent of Aucklanders according to Colmar Brunton. That should be akin to a reserve or a conservation management area and that should be exempted for very very sensible reasons from the operation of those clauses if they stand. If the Government rejects both of those two I call on the Minister to state whether he will support an amendment on behalf of Waitakere City by Lynne Pillay MP. They are technical amendments that hold the Minister to his word that it is not an individual tree but a group of trees that can be scheduled if scheduling must occur. 
I come to the fundamental point that the trees of west Auckland are a community resource as well as an individual resource. There are far too many homes on properties of less than 4000 square metres that are reticulated that are surrounded by trees. In fact the only area on some properties that is not treed is the physical area of the house. The rest of it is solid tree cover and scheduling every tree is a nonsense. At best it is a bureaucratic nightmare; at worst it is a deliberate con. That brings me to National’s Auckland MPs. Nikki Kaye goes around the tree groups and says that she will help. Either she knows she is powerless and she is not being frank or she has an overblown impression of the Minister’s willingness to listen. Either way it is vacuous; she has delivered nothing. Paula Bennett would not return the phone calls of the Waitakere City Council. She presents herself as a defender of west Auckland yet she is selling it down the river. Tim Groser could not be bothered because he is overseas. Pita Sharples could not pick up the phone. In his case I understand there may some family reasons so we will cut him some slack on that. But I call on Maori Party members to be the kaitiaki of the trees not just talk about it and vote with Labour if they can get over themselves and long-past history and support these amendments.