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:6140] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague the Hon Shane Jones said Labour is supporting the passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill with three main reservations; I intend to focus my comments on one of those reservations clause 52. This debate should be dedicated to the Lorax Dr Seuss’s character who spoke for the trees. Someone has to speak for the trees in this debate because the National-ACT Government surely will not. The contributions from the other side of the House could be dedicated to Ronald Reagan the late President of the United States who once said “Once you’ve seen one tree you’ve seen them all.” and that is pretty much the philosophy demonstrated by the National Government on this issue. The first thing to say about this is that it is a heavy-handed intervention by the Government. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Where was your minority report on section 52? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This is very very interesting; I tell Miss Kaye that she will keep. This intervention by the Government is taking away tools from local government. This is the Government that says local decisions should be made by local communities. Is this not all a bit nanny State? As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said this morning in its editorial: “Rules governing the urban environment should be left for local councils to decide. The Government is grossly overstepping its responsibilities.” Labour believes that local authorities should be able to choose how they protect the trees in their communities. 
The Resource Management Act provides avenues for parties to alter plans to remove general tree protection rules if the community is unhappy with the status quo. The process of developing the district plan and the normal political processes of local government are designed to give citizens the political power they need to hold their representatives accountable and to determine the rules for how their community is developed. It is a fundamental principle of the Resource Management Act to provide for localised decision-making on local issues a principle that this Government often trots out in this House. But this clause is an unwarranted intervention and intrusion by central government by this National-ACT Government in the affairs of local communities. 
What is next? Will the Government write district plans for councils? Is that what is coming down the track? Clause 52 is a kind of trophy in the Government’s crusade against red tape but what confidence should it give us in the quality of the Government’s regulatory reform agenda? Is this the high-water mark of the Government’s commitment to smart regulation—regulation that preserves a careful balance between the public interest and private property rights? Actually it is a case of wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am and to hell with the consequences for our trees and our communities. We should be improving the quality of our regulation not taking an axe to environmental standards. 
Do not tell me it is not possible to improve the tree protection rules; it is. The Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith rejected out of hand very sensible compromise solutions prepared by Jeanette Fitzsimons the former co-leader of the Green Party. The irony is that the Government says it wants to cut red tape but the effect of clause 52 is to force a council to individually list every single tree it wants to protect. It is common sense that that would require an army of tree inspectors going around the suburbs and identifying and assessing each tree. It is obvious that that would be so expensive and so impractical that it will not happen. As the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said this morning “the procedures of individual tree protection would place far more red tape in the path of protectors than the current rules impose on felling.” 
Here is the rub: the Government does not care because that will not happen. It will be too expensive for both councils and citizens. This Government does not care. It has ignored expert opinion from the arborists the Tree Council and numerous organisations that submitted to the select committee. Of those who submitted to the select committee on this issue 78 percent called for the deletion of clause 52 but this Government is not listening. 
The Government wants to frame this issue as being about trusting homeowners as the Minister just said; opponents of this provision assume negative motives of property owners and only councils value trees. What pathetic nonsense! Does the Government think that Aucklanders are fools? Everyone agrees that most property owners and most people want to protect their trees. The point of the law is to protect the sensible majority from the rogue minority. We have so many laws in place that aim to do that so why not apply the same principle to trees? 
It is especially disappointing that this provision throws out of the window any sense that big historic or valuable trees are a community asset that we all have an interest in protecting. On average we stay in our homes about 7 years. In a real sense we are all the guardians of our properties for future owners. The law recognises that—that our neighbours and the wider community have an interest in big trees even if they sit on our private property. To again quote the  
New Zealand Herald 
: “It has therefore been deemed reasonable that the property owner should need the consent of the community’s representatives before destroying a feature of its skyline.” It goes on to conclude: “This is hardly a frightful interference with private property rights.” 
Nikki Kaye the member for Auckland Central has been in empathy overdrive in recent weeks as she tries to convince her constituents that she really cares for the trees. She did not care enough to front up to a public meeting in Grey Lynn where 200 people were protesting this policy by the Government. She did not care enough to front up and nor did any of her National Party colleagues. But Nikki Kaye wrote to her constituents “I do have concerns about clause 52.” Well if she has concerns now would be a good time to hear about those concerns. She says “I am currently working within Government to see what I can do to allay those concerns through legislation and policy. I will keep you updated with the outcome of these discussions.” I tell Miss Kaye that now would be a very good time to front up and share with the House her concerns and what she has been able to do about them. We want to hear Miss Kaye’s concerns. This is the second reading and I challenge Miss Kaye to cross the floor and vote with this side of the House to support amendments to clause 52. 
National likes to say that 90 percent of councils including cities like Christchurch and Wellington do not use general tree protection rules and that there is not problem with the trees in those places. I have a question for the Minister: how many new trees have been added to the schedule in Christchurch in the last 10 years? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has asked a question— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To answer the question? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No that is a debating point. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I will tell that member how many trees have been added to the list in Christchurch: zero. Not a single tree has been added to the list because it is too complicated too onerous and too expensive. If clause 52 goes through unamended thousands of trees across Auckland many of them hundreds of years old will be at risk. Developers will be able to clear-fell private property sites with impunity. There will be no mechanism in place for them to be required to do remedial planting. Trees that were previously saved from being chopped down will be the first on the list to go. 
Think about the pohutukawa trees that fringe our coastal suburbs. What tree is more symbolic of our environment? Who will stop private property owners and developers from taking a chainsaw to those pohutukawas to get themselves an unobstructed view? The Prime Minister said that we will not see some kind of chainsaw massacre. That is an interesting choice of words. Councils can protect trees through individual notifications. The  
New Zealand Herald  
said this morning that if the Prime Minister believes that he is dreaming. He is in the words of his deputy “bouncing from cloud to cloud”.