Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Smith Nick: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6195] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I want to challenge a number of the quite ridiculous notions that have been put forward again about the issue of tree trimming. Let me just flick through a few of them. Essentially Labour is arguing that unless councils love trees we will not have trees. It is a bit like arguing that people would not paint their houses unless there was a council law that required them to paint their houses. Actually people do paint their houses. They paint their houses to look very nice. It makes the community look good. But does that mean that our Parliament and our councils have to have a whole lot of rules regulations and Acts of Parliament to ensure that people paint their houses? No it does not. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You’re the one with the mandate override. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say exactly the same to the member who is continuously interjecting. Labour members essentially do not at heart trust New Zealanders. That is the heart of the issue. They say to them that we need a nanny State Government and nanny State councils to introduce blanket rules because nobody is capable of making decisions about their trees unless there is some bureaucrat who is able to give them consent or not. 
Then another extraordinary argument was put forward which was that on 1 October we will see a massacre of trees. I say to any member of the Labour Party that I will bet them the best bottle of Nelson wine that their tree massacre comments are utter rubbish. Will the member Phil Twyford take me on? He is silent. He is absolutely silent. He knows that his claims are ridiculous. Then the member said that this debate is not about having to get— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member knows that the implementation date of the bill is 2012. Would it be possible to re-offer the bet— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. The member knows that it is not a point of order. The member has been here a while. The member is on the front bench. The member has raised a debating point as a point of order in order to interrupt someone’s speech. It is a free-flowing debate. I like it for that reason. People are having a robust debate. Let us continue please. That is a message to all members. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members opposite say that it is nothing to do with tree trimming. It has everything to do with tree trimming because for the 9 years that Mr Cunliffe was in the Cabinet room 5000 New Zealanders each year had to get a resource consent to trim their trees. 
Phil Twyford 
: We support tree trimming. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the question I ask members on that side of the Committee is what they did about it. What did they do about the frustrations of the New Zealanders who for 9 long years during the course of a Labour Government had to get a resource consent to trim their trees? 
The answer is that the nanny State Labour Government ignored the concerns of those New Zealanders and required that they get a resource consent for the purpose of being able to trim their tree. 
The other extraordinary point is that those members claim we are overriding the wishes of councils. The Auckland City Council which is the largest council to be affected by these provisions has made a submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee and stated that the rules do not work and that it supports the bill and the changes. I ask how it is possible for Labour members to argue that we are overriding councils when the largest council to be affected by the changes supports the changes. 
Another point I would make is to do with the quite pathetic point put forward by Labour that this Parliament has no right to consider what powers councils should or should not have. That is nonsense. It goes to the core of the responsibilities of this Parliament to define which things it is proper for councils to be able to do and which things it is proper for councils not to be able to do. Government members say that if citizens want to trim their trees then they should not have to get resource consent and councils should not be able to require them to. We say further that if the Government wants to limit the powers of councils to be able to put rules in place without consulting with landowners then it can. I know that land ownership is not a concept that weighs heavily on members of the Labour Party. All we are saying is that if a council wants to protect a tree or a group of trees there is a very simple provision in this law. It simply says that if councils want to protect a tree or group of trees then they should talk with the landowner. Is that such a novel unusual concept? If councils want to pass a rule that directly impacts on a person’s property then they should talk to that person. They should consult people. 
Phil Twyford 
: The member knows it won’t happen. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite says that cannot occur. Well I ask Mr Twyford how it is possible that every single council supports this including Christchurch. Let me go through the list: Palmerston North Napier New Plymouth— 
Phil Twyford 
: Christchurch hasn’t added one tree in 10 years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us take up that point. The member makes the claim that the Christchurch City Council has not protected a single tree in 10 years. 
Phil Twyford 
: Not one extra; not one extra in 10 years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh well let me tell the member what happens. The Christchurch City Council—and I had lunch today with Mayor Bob Parker—points out that— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who paid? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is that not typical of the senior Labour whip? All he is concerned about is that pathetic point. Here we have Parliament debating an issue that is costing millions of dollars and the great intellectual contribution from Darren Hughes is to ask who paid for the lunch. Well if that is as good as Labour members’ debate gets on this bill then I can be assured that people will not be voting for a change of Government for a very long time. 
I want to deal with the issue of the trees in Christchurch because the truth is this. 
Phil Twyford 
: There are fewer of them. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No hundreds of trees have been protected in Christchurch and I will tell members how. Again this is an area where Labour members are ignorant of the law. Every time a resource consent is applied for as a condition of that resource consent many councils properly require the protection of trees. That is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why is this member the only one talking from the National side? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Are the members of the Labour Party not truly pathetic? When I do not take calls they complain when I do take calls they complain and they try to interject to the point that I cannot answer the questions from the member. I will come back to the issue. The Christchurch City Council has protected hundreds of trees in the last 10 years. The member is incorrect. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: He hasn’t scheduled a single one. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Cunliffe asks whether the council has put them on the schedule. I am not sure that the public actually cares whether they are protected as a consequence of a condition of a resource consent or whether they are scheduled. From the public’s point of view their concern is whether the tree has been protected. 
The last point I would make is that Labour members have claimed—and we have just heard this from one of them—that a neighbour would not be consulted about the removal of a tree. Well I will give those members some news: under the current provisions the neighbour is not consulted either. In all those 5000 resource consents per year in Auckland to either trim or remove a tree there is not a single case where the neighbour is required to be consulted. What is more in 97.6 percent of the cases the consent is granted.