Twyford Phil: Resource Management Reform Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTwyford Phil: Resource Management Reform Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12821. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the passage of time we were discussing in the debate on Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill what this National Government is doing on the question of tree protection in Auckland. I want to use the remaining time just to underline the point Labour colleagues have made that National is taking an axe to provisions in the local government law that give councils powers where this is an issue—particularly in Auckland on the North Shore where there is this treasure of a coastal fringe ofpōhutukawa forest and also over in west Auckland and the Waitakere Ranges where David Cunliffe and I represent the interests of west Auckland. West Aucklanders want to see the urban forest protected and retained. There are very good reasons for that.Submitters like the Tree Council and the Environmental Defence Society came along to the Local Government and Environment Committee and pointed out not only the intrinsic amenity value of trees and the beauty that they contribute to people’s lives in neighbourhoods like Titirangi but also that they play an important protective role in very steep country like the Waitakere Ranges which has exceedingly high rainfall. Felling one tree—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Phil Twyford.PHIL TWYFORD: Just getting warmed up thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I can see that Mr Twyford.PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you. Felling one tree in the Waitakere Ranges can have a knock-on effect that can affect adjacent properties because the roots of those trees play a very important anti-erosion role. They keep the land from falling down into the valleys and the gullies because the landscape is quite unstable the rainfall is very high—Hon Trevor Mallard: But it’s a good way of making nice flat football fields.PHIL TWYFORD: It is not Mr Mallard a good way of making football fields. This is a very serious issue for the people of west Auckland who want to see the urban forest and in fact the Waitakere Ranges and the eastern coastal fringepōhutukawa forests protected for future generations.Unfortunately what the National Government is doing with the provisions in Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill is that it is imposing a kind of individual property rights takes all mentality on what people in these parts of Auckland regard as important collective community assets. The urban forest is something that provides enormous amenity and advantages for the whole community. But what National seeks to do with this bill is to take away the powers that councils have had to efficiently and effectively protect the forest by the use of general tree protection rules. It is true that there have been amendments to these provisions that will make it somewhat easier for councils to protect those trees—for example a grove a group a line of trees can be protected—but it still imposes on councils the requirement that they have to list every single section that they want to where there are trees that are to be protected. It was the submission of councils that came before the select committee that this will effectively make it too arduous and too costly to the ratepayer for councils to effectively protect all the trees they want to.After all that is the intent of the National Government on this issue. It does not want the individual rights of property owners and particularly of property developers whomay want to bowl a line ofpōhutukawa trees that may be getting in the way of their cliff top views over on the North Shore where Andrew Williams come from or—Andrew Williams: Maggie Barry comes from there now.PHIL TWYFORD: Maggie Barry comes from there now too? OK. Or they may want to bowl a line of native trees on a section in the Waitakere Ranges which would cause instability and erosion and could have a negative impact on neighbouring properties. So the provisions in this bill are a triumph for the National Party’s narrow property rights perspective over the values that members on this side of the Chamber also support which are the collective and community assets the quality of our communities and particularly the ecological asset that the coastal forest and the urban forest represent which is something that we hold dear and regard as important to safeguard for future generations.This argument has been going on now for the last few years. In fact I remember one of the first debates of the last Parliament in early 2009 when the Hon Nick Smith brought to this House rules that laid waste to general tree protection rules and which to a large extent were subsequently challenged and overturned in the Environment Court. The Environment Court decreed that it was OK for some of the Auckland councils to use general tree protection rules to protect the urban forest and allowed those councils to circumvent Nick Smith’s aspirations. Well this bill really is Amy Adams’ revenge on the Environment Court and is one more attempt to impose triumph for private property rights over those of us who would like to protect the urban forest and the coastal forest for future generations. It is just a shame that such an important part of life in Auckland can be put at risk by such a narrow barren world view that is represented by this bill.