Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6158] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The environment spokesperson for Labour Mr Shane Jones identified a number of issues that Labour wants to debate in the Committee stage. I think he has done a pretty fair measure of identifying the controversial issues: the issues in respect of trees the issues in respect of notification and the issues in respect of the ministerial veto that we are removing in respect of coastal consents. I am looking forward to the debate over the next 5 hours as we canvass some of those issues. 
I want to go straight to the issue of trees. When the environment spokesperson for Labour Mr Shane Jones gave his second reading speech his very first comments were that 50000 resource consents for New Zealand were too many and we need to have fewer. I agree with him. If we ask officials where there are a whole lot of meaningless resource consents that cost a whole lot of money and achieve absolutely nothing the answer has to be tree trimming. Let me give members the numbers. We have 5000 resource consents per year for people who trim trees. Do members know what the most remarkable fact is? That number is for only eight of our 86 councils. There are 5000 resource consents per year so that people can trim a tree. Does this Parliament really distrust ordinary New Zealanders so much that if they want to trim a tree over 3 metres in height they need to get an arborist’s report and lodge the resource consent with their council? The council official has to consider the consent visit the tree and check that it is a proper resource consent. And 97.6 percent of them are approved. Members opposite say that this legislation will result in a chainsaw massacre and that the beautiful landscapes of Auckland will be lost. Well I have just had lunch with the Mayor of Christchurch. Do they have such rules in the Garden City? No they do not. Are there fewer trees in Christchurch as a consequence of not having these nanny State rules? Of course there are not. 
Then there is the argument from Labour. I have to say that I particularly enjoy the contributions from “Mr Triffid”. You see he has gone out publicly— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. His name is Mr Twyford. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was interested to note that Mr Twyford was a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I would have thought with all his comments criticising the Government that there would be some comments in the select committee report from Labour about urban trees. I searched through all 221 pages. Surely if Mr Twyford has the time to call public meetings and to put out press releases attacking the arrogance of the Government there should be a comment from him in the select committee report on urban trees. But there is not a single sentence—not a word—from Labour in the report. I think that speaks volumes about the ineffective Opposition members. They make a huge deal out of urban trees but when they had the opportunity in the select committee— 
Hon Member 
: Nothing! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not only was there nothing in the report but they voted for the provisions in respect of urban trees. Labour members should get their act together. If they really believe that people should need a resource consent to trim a tree they have learnt nothing from the last election. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Trim or chop? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The law right now and for 9 long years of the Labour administration is that if people in Auckland want to get a tree trimmed they have to get a resource consent. 
Then the members were saying that this is a case of Parliament overruling Auckland. Well what did the Auckland City Council submit to the select committee? The Auckland City Council submitted to the select committee that this provision was ineffective and inefficient and that we should pass this provision to change it. Members opposite are saying that we are overruling the views of Auckland. Do they think we have come down in the last shower? The real motivation of the members of the political left around this issue is that they do not trust homeowners. They basically believe that good old Auckland homeowners should not be trusted with their clippers. They are a real threat to mankind with their tree trimmers and unless we get them to get approval of a council official then they should not be able to use them! 
Yes there has been a pretty active campaign. The Arboricultural Association and a number of the commercial players in Auckland have been very critical of the provision in this bill and I do not blame them. You see for the 5000 resource consents per year that are required for these tree provisions the average cost of getting a council report from an arborist is a bit over $400. People then have to use one of those businesses. They cannot go out there themselves. They cannot chop down or trim their own tree. Is it surprising that the arborist businesses of Auckland would not want this provision? They have employed a flash Wellington public relations consultancy to advocate the cause for them and I simply say that this Parliament needs to get some principles right. 
The principle in this bill around urban trees is actually very straightforward: if a council wants to put controls on the trimming or the removal of a tree it has to talk to the homeowner. Is that not a radical concept? If the council wants to put a restriction on the capacity for a person to be able to trim or remove their own tree they should talk to the person who owns the land. I think that is a very reasonable provision. If we look at the provisions of this bill we see that there is 2½ years in which councils can identify trees. I had a discussion with the Mayor of Timaru which has a beautiful landscape with a large number of trees. Do members know what that council did? It advertised for people to put forward the trees that they thought were worthy of protection. I think that is a pretty smart approach and I encourage the councils of Auckland to do what councils in every other part of New Zealand have done and actually identify the trees and the groups of trees that warrant protection; there certainly are some. It can be done quite effectively and result in the proper protection of trees in Auckland without the bureaucracy that we are proposing to replace with this bill. 
The last point I want to make on trees is that I have seen pictures in newspapers of people in reserves saying that the trees are at risk of being cut down or of people saying that trees along the main streetscape of Auckland are at risk. No they are not. This bill deals only with trees on private land and actually it is about a reflection of property rights. It is the view of members on this side of the Chamber that if one owns the property one has a legal right to trim a tree or to remove it as a general rule unless it is a tree of sufficient significance that it is properly listed in a plan and one has had an opportunity to be consulted about that listing. It is a straightforward provision that makes good common sense. It will reduce hugely the bureaucracy around tree trimming which needs to change and I urge the Committee to support it.