Resource Management Reform Bill

This bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, is part of the Government’s two-phase programme of reform of the resource management system. Phase one involved the simplification and streamlining of the Resource Management Act legislation, which has improved the processing and has been well received by everybody who is using the Act. This second-phase bill deals with the more complex issues. And there will be a further bill later this year.

This bill has three parts. Part 1 amends the Resource Management Act, Part 2 amends the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act, and Part 3 makes minor and technical changes to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. In Part 1, we deal with a series of issues concerning Resource Management Act legislation, and the two most debated changes were those to section 32 reports and the tree protection rules. I want to start by talking about the section 32 amendments. Everybody agrees that it is important to have high-quality analysis underpinning local authority decision-making when it comes to section 32 reports, and that is because section 32 reports are the basis of good environmental decision-making. Everybody agrees also that the quality of reports is inconsistent across the country. There are plenty of examples of good reports, but there are even more examples of poor-quality reports. This new legislation will provide greater guidance and greater specificity for councils around what councils require in section 32 reports.

The main debate focused on how influential the economic impacts of any proposal should be. Those who supported the change saw benefits in providing more rigorous cost-benefit analysis, and those who opposed the change felt that it moved the balance of decision making away from environmental, social, and cultural effects and put too much emphasis on economics. There was also concern that the new requirements could increase costs, and this may be the case for councils that are not usually involved in doing comprehensive economic analysis. But we have attempted to mitigate this issue by requiring a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and the significance of the effects. This was widely supported by submitters. We have also made amendments to require the reports to consider both the positive and the negative effects of economic growth.

Another issue that was very robustly debated was that of the tree protection rules. The intent of these amendments concerning trees was to reduce the high numbers of resource consents and therefore the high cost to homeowners under the blanket tree protection rules in urban environments. However, the bill does provide for councils to identify notable trees for protection in a schedule to the district plan, either as individuals or as a group of trees. This issue was particularly controversial in Auckland, but this is the type of protection that is used in most cities across New Zealand, and it works successfully in those cities. I have to give a good example of Christchurch, which does not have blanket tree protection—it is known as the Garden City and is very green and very leafy—and this works well. However, because of the concern expressed by Auckland citizens, we have made some amendments to make the identification of trees easier. We have clarified that bush areas can be protected and that the definition of a group of trees may include trees within the bush areas, and also that trees on a single block can be identified together, even if they are not officially a cluster or a grove. The key for tree protection is that protected trees must be identified by street address, and there is a good reason for that. It means that the trees and their identification will be noted on the land information memorandum, so it is absolutely transparent, everybody knows which trees are protected, and everybody understands the status of those trees going forward. The Local Government and Environment Committee and the officials have worked very hard to try to get a process that would be easily understood and effective, and we believe that the bill is better for this attention to detail.

Other issues that came up in Part 1 are the new processing time frames and the direct referral process. The new processing time frames are to do with resource consent applications that are either notified or limited notification. These are the consents that include public participation. The bill does not change the tests that determine whether a consent is notified or not. It merely introduces a revised time frame around the ongoing decision-making process, giving more certainty to applicants and to the people involved. These time frames are 130 working days, approximately 6 months, for a notified consent, and 100 working days, approximately 4.5 months, for limited notified consents. The new process requires completeness of information before an application can be formally received, in order to improve the quality of decision making and avoid subsequent delays. There will now be only one opportunity for councils to suspend processing for further information requests. Submitters generally supported the intent of these amendments, and they suggested a variety of improvements to the process, many of which have been incorporated and adopted into the bill.

The direct referral process in the bill allows for a direct referral for certain major projects above an investment threshold set out in regulations. Some councils were concerned that this would reduce their decision-making roles and responsibilities, and there was uncertainty about the general regulation-making powers. To increase certainty, we have introduced a criterion that the Minister for the Environment must have regard to when establishing that investment threshold.

The last issue I want to discuss is the collection of environmental monitoring data. The Government is keen to improve the state of the nation environmental reporting. Currently, local authorities collect a lot of useful environmental information, but that information needs to be standardised and consistent across the country to be useful. This bill proposes regulations to specify what needs to be collected and how. Although councils are very aware and they want consistency of data, they were concerned that the regulations may increase costs for them. But this is not the intention, and we have amended the bill to make it clear that any regulations will be developed only in consultation with councils, and the aim is to collect information as efficiently and as effectively as possible. You can manage only what you measure, so we are keen to get really good information so that we can manage the environment more effectively. Thank you.

It is my pleasure to be here as a representative of west Auckland, the electorate of New Lynn, which encompasses the wooded areas of Titirangi, Woodlands Park, Laingholm, and up into the Waitakere Ranges.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: It’s an electorate of trees.

It is, as my good colleagues are saying, an electorate of trees. My good colleague Phil Twyford there, of course, in his electorate, looks up at those trees and, you know, wishes that Te Atatū went further up in the hills so he could say this—but, hey, he is going to be speaking very soon.

The Resource Management Reform Bill is a really important bill from a number of points of view. It continues a trend, which is now starkly evident to the New Zealand public, that this Government cares not a jot for community decision-making and participation. Instead of working with communities, it has decided to do things to communities, and this bill is one way that that is being foisted upon a fairly unsuspecting public. Of course, we know that the agenda is not limited to this bill. It is all about ramming casinos down the throats of people who cannot afford to play in them. It is about ramming mass surveillance down the throats of New Zealanders who do not want to be spied on. The agenda goes on and on. But, for now, we are limiting ourselves to this Resource Management Act amendment bill.

My constituents are, by and large, incensed by this legislation. They are incensed by it because they have worked hard through the democratic process, both locally and nationally, to make clear time and time again, through the ballot box, that they want the Waitakere Ranges to stay green. They do not want the death by a thousand cuts of the incremental effects of subdivision up in the Waitakere Ranges. They do not want blanket chainsaw massacre tree-felling being available without a proper resource consent.

The previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, who has resumed her seat, said that this bill was all about lightening the compliance burden and making sure that people could reasonably trim trees without having to get consents. The rules currently are that any person in that area can trim 20 percent of the volume of their tree, down to a level of 2 metres above the ground, without a consent—without a consent—under the law as it currently stands. What the National Party wants is for those trees to be “trimmed off at ground level” with a bulldozer or a chainsaw.

💬 Colin King: A bit rich. The chainsaw massacre happened under Labour.

It is the chainsaw massacre—thank you, Mr King, a man known for “shearing” his wisdom around the country. We appreciate that. Let us analyse the Government’s claim that it has somehow fixed the problem and thereby saved Paula Bennett’s chances of re-election. It is a spurious claim. The draft bill as received by the House and the Local Government and Environment Committee says in amended section 76(4C) in clause 12: “to avoid doubt, each of the following descriptions of a group of trees does not satisfy the identification requirements … (a) all trees of 1 or more named species in a defined area or zone of the plan … (b) all trees in a class with defined characteristics in a defined area … (for example, all exotic trees over 5 metres high … [in a certain area] …): (c) all trees in a named ecosystem”.

The law is specific that none of these types of classifications can stand. Why is it ruling out the classification of groups of trees? It is quite simple. Because the Auckland Council went to the Environment Court and got a decision from Judge Jackson, which said that group classification was legal under the Resource Management Act. It was that decision that spurred the Draconian amendments brought forward in this bill, which required each individual tree, if you please, to be individually and specifically notified and scheduled under the Act. How can that be a move to reduce compliance costs? Goodness me! There would have been more trees felled to provide for the paperwork of scheduling every tree in the Waitakere Ranges individually. I have never heard of such a nonsense. Westies are incensed. They passed the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill through this Parliament to make clear to all that they wanted the ranges protected. In light of that, what has the Government now done? It has said: “Never mind, folks. We know we’re overriding local democracy. We know we are becoming a property developer’s dream. We know we’re facilitating the bulldozers. But, wait, there’s good news. We’re not going to do it on the basis of scheduling each individual tree. We’re now going to allow clumps of trees, provided they are done for each individual property.”

What is the problem with that? The answer is very simple. The property definition here is under 4 hectares, so there are lots and lots and lots of properties. The compliance burden is still enormous, and the bill still changes the effect of presumption, away from the fact that trees across the Waitakeres would be subject to certain levels of protection, unless otherwise exempted, to one that says that nobody is protected unless each individual property writes it up. That is the problem with this bill. That is what has got west Aucklanders talking over their teacups and their water coolers at the workplace and across their breakfast tables. Mothers are reassuring their children that it is still safe to walk to school, because the National Party has not bulldozed the shade just yet, but it is on its way.

The amendment introduced in the select committee is simply insufficient. I join with my colleague Maryan Street in acknowledging that the Minister for the Environment has made an attempt. But we are not fooled. We know that this is not a genuine Lazarus—sorry, not Lazarus; that is probably true of this National Government—a Damascus moment where it has seen the green light. This is not a Damascus moment. This is a Paula Bennett moment. Paula Bennett has gone to Amy Adams and said: “Look, I’ve done some polling. It’s 70:30 against your stupid bill. We need an amendment. We need a fig leaf. Otherwise, I’m a goner. I’m sitting on a majority of only 20 votes.” Twenty votes—that is less than Phil Twyford canvasses before morning tea on a Saturday morning. That is why Paula Bennett is a “gone-burger”. Paula Bennett is a “gone-burger”. She will not be in this Parliament as an electorate member after the next election because of this—[Interruption] Oh, why does the member for Central Otago not stick to wilding pines? It is fine to fell wilding pines in Wakatipu. It is not fine to fell kauri trees in Titirangi. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I thought that was Jackie Blue.

No, not Jackie Blue

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Are you sure?

Yes, Jacqui Dean, who rises enthusiastically to speak in the Committee stage of this Resource Management Reform Bill. I have several reasons for being enthusiastic about this. [Interruption] What do we mean by 29? Oh, 29 percent in the Roy Morgan Research poll. Oh, really—29 percent in the Roy Morgan Research poll? Can that be true? Is that a reason why the Opposition is being a little bit subdued tonight—29 percent?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member might like to speak to the bill.

Is it 29 percent? That is extraordinary, is it not? Gosh, they must be feeling stink, really, to be—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill—there are several reasons to be wildly enthusiastic about this, and one of them is the section 32 amendments, inserted by clause 69. I just need to reflect on some council plans that have been announced in the course of the past couple of years, and, in particular, the Otago Regional Council water plan changes, which, as presented—[Interruption] You see, they yawn. The junior whip of Labour—sitting on 29 percent in the polls—just yawned because he does not understand—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Did you say they were below 30 percent?

I think it is below 30 percent. It is actually 29 percent, for the first time—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Relevancy—the member has been warned once about relevancy.

This is the first time since the election—below 30 percent. Who knew? So the Labour junior whip just yawned when I mentioned the Otago Regional Council water plan, which really just highlights that the basic problem within Labour is that it does not like farmers. Labour has shown time and time again, and we have heard it tonight, that Labour does not like or support farmers. Of course, we will hear very soon from Eugenie Sage, the failed Environment Canterbury councillor, on behalf of the Green Party, who will repeat that litany of anti-farming sentiment, which, regrettably, is a very small proportion of the argument we hear these days in this Parliament.

However, on this side of the Chamber, the introduction of the changes in the section 32 amendments are great news for the farmers and the developers in my community, and in farming and agricultural communities—every community—throughout New Zealand. What it means is that now the section 32 reporting will be required to do some really good, robust analysis to underpin that decision making. Why is that important? Labour clearly does not know. Clearly, its junior whip, Chris Hipkins, does not understand why that is important, but I will tell you why that is important. It is because it impacts on people’s livelihoods. So for that reason alone the amendments to section 32 in Part 1 of the Resource Management Reform Bill make good reading. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. The Resource Management Act has always been about how we resolve conflicts in our increasingly overpopulated world between short-term economic gain, whether it is from a new subdivision or a new goldmine, and the long-term health of our environment, which supports our lives and our economy. The Resource Management Act is supposed to be about people having a say in what happens in their neighbourhoods, the places where they live and work, and the places and landscapes they care about. It is supposed to be about local democracy, about local plans, about local councils developing plans with their communities, and about the councillors being accountable through the ballot box every 3 years for the decisions they make on those plans.

Under this Government and the previous Government there have certainly been shortcomings in the way the Act has been implemented. There has been a failure to provide enough national leadership through national policy statements that are effective, and national standards. We have not had consistency around New Zealand. Regional councils have been far too slow in controlling the land uses that lead to water pollution—yes, Jacqui Dean, the intensive farming that leads to water pollution. The Resource Management Act is about providing a place and a process where we can have sensible debates about how we use nature to ensure that there are sensible controls and to ensure that we look to the needs of future generations. But this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, tramples across quite a lot of those provisions, and in my first call I would like to make some general points about why the Green Party is opposing the bill.

We are opposing it because it is promoting very speedy decisions, rather than sound decisions. It is doing that because of the much tighter and more complex deadlines that the bill is imposing—the 6-month deadline for medium-sized projects yet to be defined. It is using legislation to try to define good practice, rather than to provide guidance to councils through things like the Quality Planning website, into which the Ministry for the Environment has not invested very much in the last few years. We are also opposing the bill because it puts private property rights ahead of community benefits. It is going to reduce the amenities in our cities and towns with its attack on urban trees and by giving landowners virtually free rights to fell or severely prune trees on their land, unless the council has gone to considerable trouble and expense to identify and schedule in the plan individual trees and give them a legal description.

We are also opposing the bill because it is anti-regulation. Those are the changes in clause 69, which are the changes to the section 32 cost-benefit analysis. We think that the Government and councils need to be able to put in place strong, smart regulation to safeguard nature. But these changes to section 32, the new criteria, which look at economic growth anticipated to cease and employment anticipated to be provided or reduced, will mitigate against good rules, because the councils will be focused in their plan making on looking at the economic cost of that. That means that when we get a desire to have strong rules or strong national environmental standards, the much more easily quantifiable economic cost will mitigate against those rules being put in place.

We are also opposing the bill because of the way in which it cuts across the decision making of local authorities and reduces their roles and their responsibilities. Councils are elected to represent the wisdom of their communities, yet the changes in the bill mean that councils are far less likely to be the decision makers on important infrastructure projects. That is because of the changes around medium-sized consents and the ability for those to be called in by the Minister for the Environment. So it is not just proposals of national significance that will now be able to be called in but medium-sized proposals too. We do not even know how those are going to be defined. They will be defined by an investment threshold that is to be set in regulation. It is not in the bill. That will mean that we will have more boards of inquiry appointed by the Minister, rather than councils, making these decisions. That is a major step, yet another one, in the centralisation of power that we are seeing under this Government, rather than getting a nanny State, which National is so critical of. At least a nanny State cares. Here we are getting a command-and-control State, which is taking away the powers from local councils, overriding local democracy, and taking those powers for itself.

One of the other aspects in Part 1 that is so noxious is the attack on urban trees. Members of the Opposition know that urban trees contribute very much to the liveability of our cities and towns. They help create a sense of place and identity, they provide habitats for indigenous and introduced species, and they help reduce the heat island effect, and yet because this Government puts individual property rights ahead of community benefits, it is going to make it much harder for councils to protect our trees in our cities and towns. Indeed, it benefits the developers and the Property Council. How does it do this? It means that a council can have plan rules to protect trees—by requiring a resource consent if a landowner wants to fell them or trim them—only if it goes through and puts a schedule in the plan that individually identifies and legally describes those trees. That means that we cannot have plan rules that identify a class of trees, like coastal pōhutukawa, and have those protected. Councils like the Upper Hutt City Council have estimated that preparing the schedule would cost over $100,000 if they were to include rules in their plans to protect urban trees.

We have seen the Government introduce these changes in response to the Environment Court decision by Judge Jackson in 2009, which took a broad view of the previous changes by the Government to the Act in the simplifying and streamlining amendment, where it tried to attack urban trees as well. The Environment Court said that you could have these broad plan provisions, so what does the Government do? With this bill, it is cutting right across that. These changes once again impact on local democracy. Quite a lot of the submitters said that it should be local councils that make the decisions about which urban trees are to be protected; it should not be central government interfering and telling councils that they cannot have rules in their plans to protect urban trees unless there is a whole lot of detail attached to those provisions. This is yet another example of the Government imposing quite significant costs on local authorities. Those costs mean that these plan schedules are unlikely to be exhaustive. It means that a lot of trees will be missed out, which means that those trees will be vulnerable to being pruned or felled with impunity by landowners.

Supplementary Order Paper 282 in my name “would enable councils to use more cost effective tools to prepare plan schedules by allowing trees to be identified by a notation on an aerial photograph, GIS map layer or similar.” We would prefer not to have the provisions amending section 76 in clause 12, but the Supplementary Order Paper is an attempt at compromise, and we would like the Minister for the Environment to seriously consider it. If you have notations on an aerial photograph, the trees are still able to be accurately identified. It would be clear to both landholders and the public, but it would be potentially much less costly to councils than having to go through the scheduling process, using legal descriptions of every single tree or small group of trees.

The other thing that Supplementary Order Paper 282 does is make clear what the provisions should be around Conservation Act and Reserves Act reserves. The status of bush protection zones on Crown land is unclear in the bill, and the status of continuous vegetation, which is identified as significant in terms of section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act, is also unclear. This Supplementary Order Paper makes it clear that councils can continue to use general rules to control the clearance of significant natural areas that councils have identified where the vegetation is continuous.

We ask that the Minister seriously consider this Supplementary Order Paper, which is a compromise and which would reduce the cost to councils of preparing the schedules, otherwise councils will be burdened by quite considerable costs, and doing these schedules will be much more complex. The Government says it is all about reducing complexity, when it is not. The Supplementary Order Paper would actually help ensure that more of our urban trees are recognised and protected.

The Government says that its legislation on this series of Resource Management Act reforms is designed to make the Resource Management Act easier to use, increase its certainty and predictability, and reduce unnecessary duplication and cost. At the same time, the Government claims that these proposals are designed to deliver natural environmental outcomes New Zealanders want. But that is simply not true. The underlying thrust of the Government’s approach is for greater central government intervention in planning and consent processes. This, we think, will generate a shift from an effects-based management approach to an activity-directed approach inconsistent with the central provisions of the principal Act. That is not what New Zealanders want. The Government’s whole approach is both unnecessary and retrograde.

The evidence is also quite clear to me, concerning the length of time within which consent applications must be processed, that only a tiny number of resource consent applications are declined overall. Even the Government’s own advice acknowledges that 90 percent of significant infrastructure projects successfully progress through the Resource Management Act now. The overall success rate of infrastructure projects seeking approval shows that they have a very good chance of obtaining consent.

Last year 95 percent of consent applications were processed on time. Only 1 percent were appealed to the Environment Court. Virtually all of those cases were settled without the need for an Environment Court hearing. So why are the measures such as the 6-month consenting period for small and medium-sized projects being proposed at all? The need for the 6-month limit for small and medium applications is not justified, and may mean applications will not be dealt with properly, thus defeating the purpose of the principal Act.

These changes are unlikely to deliver the Government’s stated objectives of making the system easier to use, increasing its certainty and predictability, and reducing unnecessary duplication and cost. New Zealand First would support sensible, practical measures to make administration of the Resource Management Act processes more efficient, but we cannot see how most of the Government’s proposals will do that. I wish to comment especially on the provisions enabling some projects above a threshold not so far known to go straight to the Environment Court, without an initial hearing by a local panel, which therefore limits the discretion of local authorities. It is a mistake to make it too easy for applicants to go straight to the Environment Court, for at least two good reasons. One reason is the avoidance of local submissions and input. People need a friendly and accommodating hearings process in which they can freely participate without lawyers being necessary.

The second reason is that it is not good for the applicant either. Without an initial hearing before a panel to sort out the issues and to isolate the areas where the applicant may need to do further work, the application will have less chance of success and less chance of a good final decision. This is especially so for large projects, which are difficult to consent. Many applicants in their quest for a speedy and cheap process fail to grasp that submitters in opposition can, in fact, come up with insights and ideas for conditions of consent and for dealing with issues that the applicant has not properly considered, despite all the experts they may have. I speak from long experience, having had a leading role in two major projects. One was the Kate Valley landfill project in Canterbury, which was inherently difficult to site and consent, and the second was the Central Plains Water scheme in Canterbury, which was also difficult to site and consent.

In both cases there was extraordinary public interest and concern. Both took well over 10 years and $10 million to consent. In both cases the outcome was enhanced—from the point of view both of local submitters and the promoters of the projects themselves—through a very comprehensive local hearings process. The final consents were largely negotiated through this process, rather than simply being adjudicated on by the Environment Court. In the end the court needed only to accept and confirm what the negotiations had produced.

That sort of process is good for the purposes of the Resource Management Act, which has the protection of New Zealand’s environment as the paramount consideration. Economic advantages are also important but are not paramount. As Bill Clinton said, what is good for the environment is good for business, but the reverse, of course, is not always true. So the underlying thrust of this bill, the Resource Management Reform Bill, is bad, which is reflected in many of its provisions. New Zealand First cannot support it, but we will support Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Papers 281, 282, and 283, which are consistent with the way the principal Act is intended to operate, and are sensible and worthwhile amendments.

I am just trying to be fair, gentlemen. I call the Hon Phil Heatley.

Tens of thousands of people in Whangarei would agree with you there with that choice. I thank you for asking me to rise and to talk about this Resource Management Reform Bill. The provisions clearly are to further improve the resource consent regime. There is a Government Supplementary Order Paper 284, as members should be aware, to split the bill into three: the Resource Management Amendment Bill, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2), and, of course, the third, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill. We support this wholeheartedly.

You will be aware that during the last election campaign—which resulted in the Labour Party reaching those dizzying heights of 29 percent, which I believe it has reached again today after some time out, so I congratulate the Labour Party—we talked much about the Resource Management Act process and how we wanted to see that process work better for everyone. We wanted to see that there would be timely decisions—not necessarily a yes and not necessarily a no, but a decision made in a reasonable time frame—and that decisions were proper, followed a reasonable process, and were final. We wanted to essentially set aside the idea or concept that particularly Green Party advocates and others—because that is how they work—would consider a significant delay as the next best thing to a win. We do not think that it is right that extreme green advocacy groups such as the Green Party should decide: “If we cannot stop it, let’s delay it for 10 years.” We think that is essentially inappropriate.

This bill works with our 2009 phase one reforms, and looks forward to our phase two reforms. The bill will reduce the costs, uncertainty, and delays that have dogged the Resource Management Act for decades. Members will recall the Waterview Connection project, which, under the current Act, was a project of national significance and had a 9-month consenting time frame. That worked very, very well for that nationally significant project, and there are other opportunities as well. What this bill introduces is a 6-month consenting process for what we are calling medium-sized projects. That is actually a turn of phrase, “medium-sized projects”—I cannot recall; I know I was involved—that was developed with a considerable amount of thought and consultation with the Minister for the Environment. There are about 1,600 medium-sized projects each year, and they include all of these types of projects, all of which I think the Green Party members are opposed to.

We will just check them. Subdivisions—I believe that the Green Party wants more housing but is generally, at a local level, opposed to subdivisions. Supermarkets—I believe that the Green Party members do eat, but they are opposed to large supermarket developments, along with industrial developments and also any infrastructure projects. If they have anything to do with infrastructure, oil and gas exploration, mining, aquaculture, irrigation, supermarkets, or subdivisions, all of which the Green Party oppose, it is possible they will be medium-sized projects, which will attract the 6-month consenting process. The 6-month statutory time limit for local authorities is that time they will have to reach consent decisions, and to reduce costs, uncertainties, and delays.

At this point I would like to correct the member Eugenie Sage when she said that the Minister had the power under this legislation for medium-sized projects, subject to 6-month consenting, to call in those consents—

I want to make some comments about one element in this bill, and I am talking about the provisions in the Resource Management Reform Bill that relate to the Auckland Unitary Plan, which is a large part of this bill.

💬 Hon Amy Adams: No, that’s Part 2.

Are we not allowed to talk about Part 2?

💬 Hon Amy Adams: We’re not on Part 2. We’re on Part 1.

Ah—we are on Part 1. OK, I am going to talk about trees. I am going to talk about the tree provisions in this bill, and I want to pick up where my west Auckland colleague David Cunliffe left off. He made the case very clearly that trees are very, very important to the people of west Auckland. The Waitakere Ranges are often referred to as the lungs of Auckland, and it seems that about every 18 months or so this National Government brings legislation to the House that puts the Waitakere Ranges at threat. There have been a number of examples. In fact, currently, there are two bits of legislation before this Parliament that pose a threat to the Waitakere Ranges. One of these is the Resource Management Reform Bill, which is just the latest salvo in a long-running battle between the National Government and the Environment Court and the people of Auckland. National is doing its best to take away the ability of local territorial authorities in Auckland to use tree protection measures to protect Auckland’s urban forest.

The other bill that is currently before the House is the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill, which, interestingly, overrides the provisions of the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act, which currently in law is supreme, and all other local and district plans have to be subject to that Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. Well, unfortunately, the way the housing accords legislation has been drafted, special housing areas have to only “take into account” enactments like the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act. It is a shame that this Government does not place more value on Auckland’s urban forest. This bill is really the latest attempt to wrap up the territorial authorities in so much red tape, so much extra expense, that they simply cannot effectively protect the urban forest of Auckland.

It is not only the Waitakere Ranges out in west Auckland. Actually, the pōhutukawa-fringed coastal suburbs of the North Shore and east Auckland are affected by this measure as well. There are many sections around those coastal fringes where developers have come in over the last couple of years and bowled pōhutukawa trees—just cleared them in order to provide a better view or to make more empty space on the section. That is the outcome that the National members would like to see, because they value individual property rights over every other thing of value. Actually, that is probably the underlying ethos of this bill. It is about swinging the pendulum in favour of development, away from protecting the environment—

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Appropriations (2013/14 Estimates) Bill without amendment and progress on the Resource Management Reform Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)