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:6207] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 During the Committee stage there is often a point where it is useful to start to gather together some of the rebuttal that comes across the Chamber. The Minister said earlier that he was gobsmacked. I might observe that if he were my child I would be tempted to change my vote in the referendum. He was using several porkies that I think he knows were never true. He has accused the Labour Opposition of opposing tree trimming. That is just ridiculous. Labour supported it in the select committee and we support it now. We have said two things. We said firstly that it would be useful to have a definition of “trim” and a definition of “fell” because I would not trust that Minister not to cut something from 50 metres to down to 2 metres and call it a trim. So some guidelines would be helpful. He said that the Labour Party supported clause 52 in the votes at the select committee which was ridiculous because it was a part by part vote. We were never given the opportunity to vote for or against the clause. What we did do in the select committee’s report was clearly reserve on the point and clearly show that we disagreed with that matter. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is absolutely true. But the Minister’s furphies go on and on. He has used the argument that very few tree consents are declined and therefore substantial expense is incurred for little benefit. What he has failed to tell the Committee is that as an overall percentage a higher rate of general planning consents are passed than tree consents. So by the logic of his argument we would not have any planning processes at all because it is all a waste of time when most are granted. The second point is that the Minister has omitted to tell us that many of the ones that were passed were modified and passed in modified form and that therefore the process is not only real but valuable. He said that no tree rules exist in 90 percent of councils so there is no need to have them all. There are two problems with that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No—no blanket rules. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes—no blanket rules. The first problem with it is that all areas are not the same. The reason the district councils surrounding Waitakere wanted Parliament to pass the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill was that the pressures of development on the boundary of the bush were uniquely strong and acute in that area and that is why this House only last year by majority voted that bill into law. Having put that bill into a correct format with the Resource Management Act it is an abomination that this House would now reverse its own decision of not even a year ago and gut the provisions that allow it to be implemented. 
I remind the Minister that in respect of the trees provisions 81 percent of Aucklanders and 77 percent of Waitakere residents in an independent Colmar Brunton poll said they supported the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act and they wanted greater protection for the trees in them thar hills. That is exactly why I am putting forward an amendment that treats the Waitakere Ranges in the same way that the Minister is proposing to treat conservation management areas and reserves which is simply to say that it is a special case and the general prohibition on blanket tree provisions should not apply because it is impracticable to schedule every tree. I welcome the Minister to come up to Titirangi and go around and schedule every tree—we can barely see the ground for the canopy cover. The only clearances are where there are actual dwellings amongst the forest and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a streamlining measure to schedule all of the trees there. It may be physically possible in the extreme but it will cost the Waitakere City Council an arm and a leg in time money and attention. It will cost the residents of my city a huge amount of bother at a time when Rodney Hide is running a minimalist agenda and saying that councils have no place in environmental protection at all. 
Does the Government not talk to itself? How can it be that Rodney Hide says in his Cabinet paper that councils have no role in environmental protection yet this Minister says councils have to schedule every individual tree? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No I don’t. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Oh well—or group of trees. But if he is going to use the group line why will he not accept Lynne Pillay’s amendment which removes the word “specific” and makes clear for the avoidance of doubt that groups of trees can be scheduled together? It does no more than that. The Minister tried to make a crude joke by saying “Ha ha ha! District plans already have maps in them so there’s no need to have an amendment that allows them to schedule using a map.” Well that is simply childish. Of course it is helpful to use a map. It is absolutely essential. If the Minister’s word is to be taken—and he is an honourable member—then it is essential to be able to use groups and maps are part of that. I ask the Minister to confirm for the Committee whether he will consider this again. 
The bottom line with this—and there are many many hundreds of emails that I dare say we will want to table before this is over; many hundreds of emails make the point—is that this Minister has got it wrong and this Government has got it wrong and they will pay the price. The last bastion of hope for Aucklanders is the fact that the felling provisions do not take effect until 2012 and there is a little event near the end of 2011 which will give Aucklanders the opportunity to make sure that clause 52 is never operative. When Labour wins the election in 2011 with our colleagues in the Green Party—and no doubt the Maori Party will change horses by then—we will suspend the implementation of that provision and have a new review so that Aucklanders can have a say in their own future. So I say to ladies and gentlemen out there in listener land that if they do not like clause 52 and if this jackbooted Minister tries to steamroll it through Parliament without further consultation and refuses to put it in the second tranche they have one chance to stop it in 2011.