Calder Cam: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Calder Cam: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6180] 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a privilege to stand again to address members on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. My previous oration this morning on the issue of trees was cut off somewhat; one could say it was truncated. I would like to return to that subject. As the Minister observed we need to apply a good dose of common sense in the Resource Management Act and I think that with the broad cross-party support we have received on this issue we are getting it. 
Clause 52 of the bill which deals with the general protection of trees in the urban environment has occasioned much correspondence from the community mirrored by the debate in the House. The major urban area affected by clause 52 is Greater Auckland where a number of councils have general tree protection rules. There is a school of thought that clause 52 will countenance widespread rapine and plunder of our precious urban arboreal resources. What is it about Auckland and those who live there that should occasion such concern? As an MP who is resident in Auckland and fortunate to have his office in the green and leafy electorate of Epsom I feel I must stand and speak on behalf of those residents who wish to trim or remove a tree on their property without the time-consuming and expensive process of seeking a consent. This Government believes that citizens who own their properties should be able to do just that. 
Are those good residents as I asked this morning all vegetal Visigoths? Are they philistines of  
Philodendron 
; plunderers of pohutukawa; pillagers of puriri; or castrators of kauri? I suggest that they are not. Are those good people ravagers of  
Rhododendron 
; topplers of tawa— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I hope this is a serious point of order. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: As a descendant of the proud Ngapuhi tribe I cannot let that remark go unchallenged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: That is not a point of order. The member is interrupting the speech. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Castrating a kauri for goodness’ sake! What next? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Please sit down. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: We have heard from the Hon Shane Jones that we are not likely to see any castrators of kauri in the far north. I am relieved to hear that. I put it to the Committee that neither are we likely to find them in Auckland City. Will people take an axe to every akeake within sight? I respectfully submit that they are not likely to and they will not. 
What is it about the good citizens of Auckland City North Shore Waitakere and Manukau City that causes them all to be portrayed by those opposed to this amendment as rabid pillagers and plunderers who are straining at the legal leash of section 76 of the principal Act? I remind members that clause 52 is designed to amend that section which is apparently the only restraint on the lust and naked greed that would otherwise see people sacrifice huge numbers of prized significant specimen trees on the altar of Mammon. Are the good citizens of Auckland North Shore Waitakere and Manukau City any more likely to act in that manner than the worthy burghers of Christchurch Hamilton and Wellington? 
Jo Goodhew 
: And Timaru. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: And Timaru thank you. I respectfully suggest that they are not. 
Ninety percent of New Zealand cities do not have blanket tree protection laws yet all communities face developmental pressure to a greater or lesser extent. Four of New Zealand’s largest cities as we have heard—Wellington Hamilton Timaru and Christchurch—do not have such blanket tree protection. There is no endemic problem with regard to the loss of urban trees in any of these cities. Indeed it would not have escaped the attention of anyone in the Chamber that Christchurch enjoys the sobriquet “the garden city”. These reforms are about pulling back on expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy. We have had some concern raised about the Bluegreens. They reinforce National’s blue-green principles that being pro-environment does not equate to being pro - red tape. We find it unacceptable that concerns about minor projects such as trimming and removing a small tree can cost more than the projects themselves. 
As a case in point about 5000 of the 50000 resource consents that are applied for every year are for tree trimming or removal as we may have heard earlier—5000 which is almost 10 percent. Very few of these consents are declined. However this process is estimated to cost Auckland City almost $2 million. “How much?” we might ask. It is $2 million which could be used to treat stormwater or perchance could be used to purchase small parcels of urban land dotted throughout the community that could become treed or that are treed already. 
To reiterate I say the consent process for trimming or removing trees costs individuals and ratepayers considerable time and money although it shows few benefits. This Government believes these costs are unjustified. Thank you.