Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6163] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak in the Committee stage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. I would not use the words we heard from the previous speaker Jeanette Fitzsimons to describe the way the bill has gone through the House; I would use the words “thorough” “totally engaged” “committed” and “diligent” to describe the Local Government and Environment Committee’s work and the conduct of each and every member of it. I am surprised. The fact is that the Greens do not like the bill; they have said so from the beginning. That has always been acknowledged. It was not a matter of contention or debate. We approached the whole thing as everybody working together and I am sorry that they wish to downplay the activities of the select committee and sell its work a little cheap. I am sure that the previous speaker did not really intend to do that because we met regularly and we met often. We discussed a wide range of activities. A lot has been said about trees and I will speak about them in a minute. We also heard from some serious committed diligent people from councils. We heard from the Porirua City Council that 90 percent of the consent applications they receive are not in a state ready for processing. This was echoed by other councils. The interesting thing in the whole approach to this bill was the level of support we received from councils planners and people who are involved at the coalface. 
According to planners I have spoken to the changes to notification will save huge amounts of time because of the freedom from needlessly writing reports to justify why they have not notified a particular application. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: It’s democracy! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That is right. This is democracy. The bill is neutral on the issue of notification. It does not impose restrictions and it does not prevent notifications from being made. The honourable member opposite Mr Jones who was very good to work with on the select committee talks of democracy but it is sometimes hard for people to see the wood for the trees. That is an appropriate phrase to use in regard to clause 52. Trees will not be put at increased risk as a result of clause 52. 
It is interesting to note that as a legislator one gets a lot of attention from lobbyists. Just a scan of the emails I have received in the last week would make interesting reading for someone from outside Parliament. I have been getting about 150 a day. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Thousands! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: How are they interesting? I will tell the member how they are interesting. I have been getting two sorts of emails. Half of them tell me I should be smacking kids and half of them tell me I should be hugging trees. I like to think that it is the other way round. In fact I misread some of them and I became confused. I thought they said that I should have an approved contractor for smacking. I guess that used to be the role of schoolteachers. All of these emails have been coming from Auckland. I do not think from a casual analysis of them that a single one has been written by people who are worried about trees that they own being at risk under this new law. That is not the case. They all say that they are worried about what will happen to other people’s trees or about what other people will do to their trees. 
I cannot quite see why a change of law will result in—[ 
Interruption 
] My colleague across the Chamber says that Husqvarna shares are going through the roof. Developers have not been cutting trees down. They have not been clear-felling. Developers have been getting consents. Very few applications are denied. What will change? I will tell members what will change. The $1.8 million that Devonport or North Shore City Council spends on processing applications might be used for other purposes. It might be used for planting trees. There is a novel thought! Instead of using all that money to get people to ask if they can trim a tree councils could use the money to plant a tree—if they could find nurseries that supply substantial trees. 
I planted substantial trees in Devonport which was mentioned before. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Flagstaff Hill! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: No no. The Chair is ringing the bell; I will not take a long call. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Please do! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: That member would like me to. Very well. The Leader of the House has asked me to and that is kind. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am leaving now of course. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Ha ha! 
I planted a row of poplars in Shoal Bay Road in Devonport between my house and the houses of two neighbours. It was not very many years before the poplars were huge. They grew beautifully and everyone commented on them but then they blocked the drains between us and our neighbours and a sewerage pipe as well. They were the most inappropriate species of trees to plant in that particular place so down they came. No permits or consents were required. At the same time my wife and her friends suggested that it would be nice to have double flowering cherries and peaches on the berm down the middle of Shoal Bay Road. The community bought the trees and we planted them. The council said it would help maintain them 
Phil Twyford 
: Where is this going? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Those trees are still there. They will not be cut down; everyone likes the trees. Why do members on the other side of the Chamber seem to imagine that everyone hates their trees? They love them. Give them a chance. 
To echo the opening comments of the Minister for the Environment I say that one wonders whether the Opposition has learnt from the last election. People wanted change and they particularly wanted change to the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The trees will be chopped down instead of protected. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: They will not be cut down instead of protected. I have yet to hear—and I look forward to hearing it in the next 4½ hours—any solid reasoning why this cutting-down business could not be done presently. Thank you.