Cameron Mark; Abel Steve; Bishop ChrisMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform for giving me but a moment of his time. Suffice it to say there's a few issues in the freshwater space and I know the Hon Rachel Brooking alluded to it earlier on. I'm cognisant of the settings in and around the national policy statement (NPS) for 2020 and what he expects the councils to do in the interim—if he could give some clarity for those that may have tuned in—prior to the extension that he alluded to. I'm sure he's got some offerings and words he might want to share with the committee for certainty. STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and I appreciate the opportunity to have this robust conversation about this because this is a substantial change. The Minister responsible for RMA Reform refers to it just going back to three months ago but of course what we have achieved in long-fought struggles to achieve environmental outcomes have taken years. One of those struggles has been the return of general tree protection. Now if you want to take it back to the 1990s in fact we had general tree protection in the original version of the Resource Management Act (RMA). We had it there. So that is one instance where the RMA was better than what we've had since the amendments were made in 2009 and 2012 to the RMA. Up until three months ago we had no general tree protection and then we got it back. We're not just going back three months; we're going back over 10 years to 2009.Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Great leaps backwards.STEVE ABEL: These big steps backwards in that environmental space that ecological space as my colleague Lan Pham talks about in terms of the water space—these are things that people in the community have argued for and fought for for many many years to finally get them recognised in the legislative frameworks that protect the collective commons which is our environment. I want to speak to a very specific amendment regarding general tree protection. It's an amendment to Part 4 of Schedule 2 after the amendment to section 58H at page 105 after line 6. We want to bring back the right of councils to protect trees. This was brought back in the Natural and Built Environment Act. It was in the original Resource Management Act 1991. If you want to take it back to the 1990s bring back this as well. I feel that in my town where I come from—in Auckland—there is a heartbreak on a weekly basis. When people go to work and the tree that they pass at the end of their street that's been there for a hundred years—they come back from work and it's gone and there's no by or leave there's no say and there's no input from the community on it. I was part of a campaign in Avondale to save a magnificent arboretum of native trees at Canal Road. The community spent 245 days trying to save that stand and it is gone and that is the consequence of us not having general tree protection. I took great heart from the select committee this year that you were sitting on Mr Bishop and in your comments at that select committee and this is why I am hopeful that you will support this amendment. You said—and I paraphrase—I am fast coming to the view that we need some sort of general tree protection in this country not just for livable cities and for the climate" and you are absolutely correct about that. For us to have livable cities trees provide extraordinary amenity. They absorb moisture they hold the land together they provide urban cooling—they're like magnificent outdoor air-conditioning units. I invite you this summer to sit under a big tree and find out just how incredible their services are. They sequester carbon. They take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into wood. It's not magic; it's real—it's called nature. They do incredible things in our cities and they make our cities more livable. They make density done well a good thing when you retain those mature trees. If you allow those trees to have no status and no protection they will be gone and that is what we've seen. We've seen a third of our urban ngahere lost in the last decade in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland and it's awful for Aucklanders. It's magnificent to come here to Wellington and see how you've got this incredible green belt still intact. It needs a legal status it needs protection and I urge you to seriously consider this amendment. This is a very reasonable thing that most people across our community agree we need. We need general tree protection. Thank you. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you Madam Chair. Let me deal with a few of the questions. Just on the freshwater stuff in the questions asked by Ms Pham and also Mark Cameron the Government has made its position clear on that: we are extending the deadline for notification of council instruments through to 2027. That allows enough time for the Government to go through the process of repeal replace and rebalance and there'll be further information to come about that in due course. It'll be led by the Hon Penny Simmonds the Hon Andrew Hoggard and the Hon Todd McClay—Chlöe Swarbrick: What are you balancing towards Bish? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —to work through that process. Well we're rebalancing and you will have to wait and see. All Christmases don't come at once Ms Swarbrick—you'll just have to wait. On the issue of water services just to deal with Mr McAnulty's point from I think a few minutes ago this bill doesn't really have anything to do with it to be honest. Hon Kieran McAnulty: I disagree. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well OK you feel free. But the Government is working through a process around three waters reform which is being led by Simeon Brown the Minister of Local Government and we are going through a process which the Minister will talk more about in due course. But the Government's policy position is very clear which is: council ownership council control and remove mandatory co-governance provisions. But it is important that we fix the water infrastructure crisis that is afflicting our councils and our communities. We've got to go through a proper process to get that right and repeal three waters. Simeon Brown will have more to say about that in due course. In relation to Mr Abel's point about urban tree protection it's good to see you picked up on my comments to the select committee from a few months ago. We're not going to support his amendment but I am happy to have a conversation around how we can do better as a country with doing density—and our cities are going to become more dense in the future. It's an inevitable by-product of urbanisation and the growing population and—Scott Willis: The conversation is nice but a rule is good. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah well you know—all good things take time Mr Willis. [Interruption] Well if you'd just listen to me I'm saying—Hon Member: You're delaying it another three years. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well I'm happy to have the conversation around it. We're not going to support the amendment but I think there is a balance to be struck around how you can do better density and get more trees in our cities to encourage denser living but at the same time balance that against property rights because by definition urban tree protection that protects trees on private property has an impact on people's land but also the way in which we plan our cities. So I'm happy to have a conversation about it. I take the member's point but we won't be accepting the amendment."