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:6211] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee has probably gathered by now that Labour members are against clause 52 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. 
Hon Member 
: But it is worth repeating. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It is worth repeating. So disgusted are we by this expedient tatty clause that this evening I will propose an amendment by way of Supplementary Order Paper 40 which has been tabled. I shall mention briefly that there are two parts to the amendment. One is to omit clause 52 and the other is to omit clause 151. The effect of the amendment would be to delete the prohibition on the use of general tree protection rules. The intention is that this change would allow the Government time to meaningfully engage with Aucklanders and local communities on appropriate modification of the tree protection rules. 
I want to comment on the many interventions that we have had from the Minister for the Environment this evening. I think disingenuous is probably the best description I can find for the comments of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. That is his name is it not the Hon Dr Nick Smith? Is that the correctly pronounced name? [ 
Interruption 
] Yeah. He repeatedly and insistently characterised Labour’s position on this provision as being against the trimming of trees. We have made it clear throughout the select committee process and during today’s debate that we are not against the trimming of trees. We have made it very clear that we support the expected Green Party amendment that would make the trimming or pruning of trees a consent-free zone and that remains our position. 
The Minister in fact rejected out of hand the Green Party’s compromise proposal which would have seen trimming removed from the rules and would have introduced a quicker easier and simpler procedure for homeowners who wanted to obtain consent for the removal of trees. The Minister rejected it yet he came to the Chamber this afternoon all puffed up and repeatedly said that the intention of the Government against our opposition was to deal with tree trimming. 
There are a couple of points that the Minister has returned to over and over again through the afternoon and evening. The first one is property rights. He clearly is of the view that this issue is about an assertion of the property rights of landowners. I will read an email from Sue Roff who describes herself as a National Party supporter: “It has come to my attention that many believe in property rights. I know I do and I agree with the right of a person to do what they want with their land but large trees are a resource that affect everyone. Consider if I want to put in a septic tank. Why do I need a consent? Do I not have property rights then? Because the contents of the tank could leach into the groundwater and this would affect everybody. Well the value of large trees are the same. They affect everyone: our birdlife groundwater drainage physical well-being—the list goes on. I have trusted the National Party all my life and now trust they will do what is right.” Well I say good luck Sue. 
Another email will be of particular interest to the member for North Shore. It comes from Roger Donnell who is fearful that the Government will “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” He has an interest in this matter because he lives in Wilcox Bush on Beach Road. He tells the story about the intention of a developer to subdivide the next-door section. He writes: “We were originally approached for approval of the subdivision concept but did not approve it because of the possibility of damage or destruction of the trees on the property which include a 400-year-old puriri. Since then the Government has changed and all has gone quiet. We suspect it is simply to wait for this bill to be passed so that the bulldozers and chainsaws can move in and destroy the existing bush.” The member for North Shore might like to get back to Roger Donnell because I think he deserves an explanation if clause 52 is passed this evening—and I suspect it will be unfortunately. 
That last letter conveys the accurate sense that if this ban on general tree protection rules is implemented there is nothing standing between Aucklanders and the destruction of some of our most treasured trees around the city. If that happens the National MPs on the other side of the Chamber will have to do some explaining. They will have nowhere to hide including Ms Nikki Kaye.