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:6238] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 There is much in the Resource Management Act (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill that members on this side of the House agree with and we know that from the debates in the last few hours but in this final debate I will to focus my comments on clauses 52 and 151 which were points of contentious disagreement between us and members on the other side of the House. 
After listening to the last few hours of debate I am left with a couple of questions. Could the rules have been improved; if so why did the Government not want to improve the rules and why does it insist on doing away with them altogether and leaving our trees in Auckland without any protection? The day before yesterday there was an article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
about a phoenix palm on a reserve on the North Shore. To be sure this was an example of planning and consent regulations gone mad. It required a half-day sitting by a panel of three commissioners and a written report by council officials. I think there were 15 submissions from neighbours who live near the park about the fate of this phoenix palm. I ask whether that is a strong case for the rules being done away with. When I made some inquiries I found out that the North Shore City Council has antiquated and inappropriate delegations that require that any tree even one listed on the noxious plants list of the Auckland Regional Council has to be dealt with by a commission and the question of whether it is notified has to go to that panel. Then amazingly the panel decided that actually it should be notified which seems utterly bizarre to me. 
Throughout the afternoon the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith has kept on insisting that there is no alternative and that the rules have to be prohibited and done away with. That seems to be a wilful denial of the fact that sensible compromise proposals were put up during the Local Government and Environment Committee process that would have allowed homeowners to trim their trees without needing a consent and would have allowed certified arborists or council staff to visit a property and issue a consent for tree removal. I would have thought that that would pretty much solve the problem but no the compromise mechanism put up by the Greens was rejected out of hand by the Hon Dr Nick Smith and he went on his merry way with clauses 52 and 151. 
Much of the argument the Minister put forward rested on the idea that this was about property rights and that getting local councils off the back of property owners was about protecting the private property rights of tree owners and homeowners. I think that idea is easily dispelled and we have dispelled it a number of times in the course of the afternoon but it needs to be said again what a trivial and absurd argument this is. Our system of Government and of politics long ago did away with the idea that private property rights exist in isolation in this way. We do not allow swimming pool owners to not fence their swimming pool because the pool is on their private property. We do not allow people to concrete their entire section because it is their private property because that would have a very damaging effect on their neighbours. We do not allow people to build up to the boundary because that would be damaging for the community. In that way trees are in many ways a public good. They are a community asset. They provide beauty and character for our streets they guard against erosion they provide shade and they are often just as valuable or more valuable to neighbours and people living in the community as they are to the people who own them. 
The Minister talked a lot about trusting homeowners and how Labour did not trust Auckland homeowners to look after their trees. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. We have so many laws on our books that are about guarding the interests of the majority against the small minority of people who are irresponsible and that is what this is about—general tree protection rules. So it is nonsense to suggest that we do not trust homeowners. In fact most Aucklanders no doubt believe that our trees should be protected and want an urban environment that is rich in trees. It is the small minority of rogue developers and homeowners who would bowl all the trees off their section for short-term gain. That is what we are trying to guard against. 
Will trees be protected once this law goes through? Are alternatives in place that will mean that the trees will be protected? We believe that the answer is no and councils have made that very clear. It was reported in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that the staff of Auckland City Council said that they will not be seeking to list and schedule all the trees that are currently protected around the city because it is not practical or feasible. The irony is that these clauses are purportedly about cutting red tape. Yet in order to protect the same volume of trees currently protected under these rules it would require an army of tree inspectors to travel around the suburbs of Auckland individually assessing documenting and listing the trees to be scheduled. It will not happen it is not practical it is too expensive and it is not feasible. That is why we put up amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to change those provisions. 
The question I am left with is why the National Government wants to ride roughshod over local government in Auckland. It is a Government that professes that decisions on local matters should be made by local people. It has professed this principle throughout the entire debate over the Auckland super-city. We have spent many many hours discussing the powers of local boards and the importance of allowing local people to make local decisions so why does the Government want to put at risk the trees that Aucklanders treasure so much? The point has been made that Auckland councils have said that they simply will not attempt to individually list those trees so the trees will be at risk. I will tell the House why I think they are prepared to do that. It is because the provisions in this bill are a little trophy. They are something to show for the Government’s crusade against red tape but at what cost? Nick Smith is certain that no trees will be knocked over. I have lost count of the number of times he said this afternoon that no trees will be knocked over but Aucklanders have seen it happen on numerous occasions. If we look around the cliff-tops of the coastal suburbs of Auckland we see examples of sections where developers have knocked over pohutukawa and cleared sections in order to put in a tennis court or some new building. 
If these provisions are passed then that will undoubtedly happen again and when it does the National MPs of Auckland will have to answer to their constituents. The slightly green-tinged environmentalist of Auckland Central Ms Nikki Kaye—sometimes she is slightly pink-tinged—will have to answer to the people of Grey Lynn Herne Bay Freeman’s Bay and Ponsonby and she will have to explain why she did no more than hand-wringing and expressing her concern and feelings for the trees of Auckland Central. A lot of allegedly good Nelson wine was offered on wager this afternoon by the Minister and I feel that I have missed my chance by not placing a bet to get that wine. But never mind I say to the National MPs in Auckland particularly to these ones with small majorities: Nikki Kaye Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Paula Bennett. They are the ones who will have to answer on this issue to the voters of Auckland in 2 years’ time. That will be on their conscience and they will have to explain to the voters of Auckland when the trees start to fall. Thank you Mr Speaker.