Shearer David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Shearer David: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6202] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I rise to support my colleagues in calling for the removal of clauses 52 and 151 of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour has always opposed those clauses. It did not vote on the clauses; it voted on the bill as it went through part by part. I also rise in support of the hundreds if not thousands of people who have written in and have been in contact with us to oppose clauses 52 and 151. I spoke at a meeting last week in Grey Lynn in the heart of the Auckland Central electorate and my colleagues David Cunliffe Russel Norman and Phil Twyford were also present. People were opposed to angry at and very saddened by the fact that many of the trees in their area were going to be removed. 
Phil Twyford 
: Were there any National MPs there? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: My colleague asks interestingly whether any National MPs were there and the answer is no there were none unfortunately. People were disappointed that National MPs were not there because they wanted to tell them what they felt about clauses 52 and 151—that they did not want them. Essentially those clauses remove the council’s right to put on a blanket ban to protect trees. 
The question and it is a fundamental one is why central government is telling councils what they should and should not do. What is wrong with councils being able to respond to their own communities and put in tree protection legislation that fits their local communities? Six out of seven Auckland councils currently have blanket tree protection. Rodney District Council removed it in 2000 but put it back in 2007. Why? Because popular opinion said that it was the best way to protect trees. Now either the councils are stupid or they do not understand good tree protection—or are they doing what works best for them? We have to ask ourselves that question. 
Auckland is different from much of the rest of the country and my colleague Phil Twyford mentioned some of those differences. Auckland contains one-third of New Zealand’s population. It is a high-density population and the demand for development is more acute than in any other place in the country. There are development pressures. The extra value placed on a property that has a view after the removal of trees is way above what we would find in any other place in the country. Auckland has a high rainfall and young soils. It is hilly and those hills are very susceptible to erosion. That is why its councils prefer to have blanket protection for trees. Trees protect the environment that is so precious to Auckland. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why does Auckland City Council oppose it? 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Auckland City Council could change it if it wanted to. Manukau City Council is for it North Shore City Council is for it and in 2007 Rodney District Council voted it back in. Why is this Government talking about removing it? I do not understand it. 
Phil Twyford 
: Nanny State. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: It is not a nanny State; it is a “ninny State”. It does not make any sense. The alternative is to schedule individual trees. Members should think about the bureaucracy that is involved with individual trees or even groups of trees as suggested. Members should think of the bureaucracy it will take in order to be able to do that for each of those trees or groups of trees. It is time consuming it is bureaucratic and it is costly. Members should think of the litigation that will be involved when somebody arrives at somebody’s property and demands that their tree be scheduled. What will their reaction be? They may not want it to be scheduled; they will appeal it. There will be an enormous amount of litigation which councils will have to fund. As my colleagues have said it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.