A possible wholesale destruction of Auckland’s green areas could result if clauses 52 and 151 the government’s Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill goes through unchanged. The National-ACT Government is insisting that these clauses stay. I spoke at a meeting on Tuesday evening in Grey Lynn to a passionate group of about 200 people really concerned that trees will disappear from our urban environment. Anger and concern is growing as people start to understand the implications of what is coming.
Labour’s message is that we will work hard to change clauses 52 and 151, together with the Greens. But ultimately if the government insists on pushing them through, they have the majority to do so.
So what’s wrong with the Bill?
Clauses 52 and 151 of the bill remove rules that provide general tree protection in an urban area. Essentially councils will no longer be able to place a blanket ban on protecting trees as many councils currently do. In other words, currently trees are protected. If someone wants to fell a tree, they apply to the council for a consent to do it. Most consents are granted.
The Government claims the current system is too cumbersome and expensive. It wants to take the restrictions off trees. Instead it will schedule and protect individual trees.
There’s a whole lot wrong with that approach. First, communities should decide how they protect their environment. Why is central government stepping into legislate something that should be the prerogative of the local council? Isn’t this nanny state? Or more accurately ninny state, because it also doesn’t make any sense.
It will be very expensive and bureaucratic to protect trees individually – exactly what the Government wants to prevent. It doesn’t remove red tape, it just transfers it. More importantly it carries some serious risks.
- The government’s proposal will force council’s to list trees they want to protect. If a tree is not on this protected list, it can be chopped down with impunity.
- The natural character of the shoreline should be protected, for example. But much of that character involves the presence of trees that will no longer be protected. Our pohutukawas and other native trees on the coastline are most under threat from people wanting to improve their view.
- How will we decide which trees will be scheduled? Clearly this job will take time. In the meantime, there’s a strong risk that landowners will fell trees before they are put on the list, creating a rush to chop down trees in urban areas.
- There are real subsidence and erosion risks if tree cover is removed.
- Approvals for tree removal and pruning are often given currently on the condition that other trees are planted as a replacement. Will that continue to be the case? It’s less likely for sure.
- Large ancient trees are community assets, not just those on an individual’s property. They have often been there for hundreds of years. When it is requested that a tree be removed, there needs to be a wider say about the loss of amenities, shade, ecological loss etc. Often an arborist can make a visit and suggest other options, pruning, for example, which removes the need to take the tree out. And once a large tree is gone, we’ll not see another grow in our lifetimes.
The current system of applying to cut down trees has its limitations. It can be slow and bureaucratic. So let’s look at ways at improving that. Let’s address the problem through a sensible amendment. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and allow wholesale felling of trees except for those few that are scheduled.
This is an early sign of National’s deregulation agenda and I’m sure we will see a lot more of it in the coming months.
The Labour Party will be working constructively and positively with the Green Party on a compromise but unfortunately the Act-National coalition have refused to negotiate. We will keep trying and keep an open mind.
Pressure from the public is crucial. With ACT, the National Government has a majority. That is why I encourage people to write to the Environment Minister, Dr Nick Smith, and their local National MP – particularly those in marginal seats where trees are important part of their communities. They need to be told that trees are important and while the Resource Management Act may not be perfect, this is a step too far.
Environment Minister: nick.smith@parliament.govt.nz
Auckland National MPs: nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz, paula.bennett@parliament.govt.nz, sam.lotu-iiga@parliament.govt.nz
Isn’t this really a property rights issue? A tree on someone’s land is that person’s property, and surely they have the right to do with it as they see fit. It is a tree, afterall. Or are some trees more equal than others? And who decides? Do the trees get any say?
David- Paula Bennett has 2 t’s and Sam is ‘Lotu” with a t.
Is it too much to ask that you include ALL the National Auckland MP’s, i know there are an awful lot of them after your bath in 2008 but it would also help if you want the emails to get through to spell their emails correctly.
We want to bother only with those MPs who are likely to lose their seats next time around.
Sam L-L is special since he is double dipping as both an elected MP ( full time) and an elected Councillor. Which as Whaleoil knows is a terrible thing, he has bleated enough when other parties MPs do the same.
In fact google lists 294 occasions the greasy cetacean has mentioned double dipping . Who knew ?
I’m pleased that Labour and the Greens are trying to protect the trees.
@Jennifer – I’m glad the trees can’t talk, imagine the headlines about the trees complaining about their family members being murdered by humans.
There are some 6,500 households in Grey Lynn. Let’s assume there were 75 households from that area represented. After all the ‘about 200′ is of course exaggerated, greens and other leftists travel in pairs, and there would have been plenty busybodies from elsewhere. This would mean that Shearer thinks its quite proper that 1.1% of the population of an area goes about determining what the remaining 98.9% can do with their own trees.
That, my friends, is socialism for you.
“This is an early sign of National’s deregulation agenda and I’m sure we will see a lot more of it in the coming months.”
Promise? I’ve been waiting for over 9 months now and mostly it’s just been same old same old.
Nikki Kaye is missing in action on Auckland issues in general and constituency issues that involve any controversy. She is working hard to keep the seat by not offending anyone, by making no statements that in nay way cause her to confront an issue, by doing the spade work on individual matters, and by being a pleasant person (which is not a bad thing).
She and the rest of the region’s National MPs are content to be invisible on the Supercity – kudos if it works, blame Rodney if it doesn’t I imagine that she’s watching Phil Twyford build up his constituency apparatus with some concern – if the Supercity turns bad, he’ll be on her case big time (assuming he gets the nod from the LP).
I’m glad there has been some widespread realisation of what this change might lead to. During the submissions period on the RMA amendment bill most people were going on about restricting rights of appeal to plans and so on… which of course are important aspects to debate…. but, this is rule change stuck out like a sore thumb.
How can banning councils from imposing this rule at all be in accordance with the fundamental principle of the RMA?
David is from my electorate and I think his personality is one we need more of in Parliament but this type of policy announcement is why I could never bring myself to vote Labour in the by-election (that and being a National Party member wouldn’t make sense)…
How are we supposed to get the infill and land intensification we need to stop further sprawl out over the MUL’s and the much greater environmental degredation of greenfield development if we cannot cut down trees in the way of subdivisions and mixed use developments..?
We need to increase our dwellings inside our existing urban area or we will never get the public transport we need to reduce pollution and emissions… This means infill and multi-storied buildings and some trees will have to go…
How will Labour provide lower cost housing and reasonable numbers of people per house if we cannot keep expanding (and shouldn’t even if we could) because of the MUL’s and because we can’t go up because creating a large enough building footprint is impossible due to a few non-native trees being in the way..?
Surely the focus should be in giving the council enough time to protect all the coastal trees and trees of significance inside the MUL’s and all trees outside the MUL’s..?
You can’t have it both ways, affordable housing for NZers and protection of every tree in existence… This course of action proposed by DS may mean more environmental damage if it forces Auckland to expand…
Otherwise we can all go back and live in the forest and have 25 year life expectancies…
This is the first of your posts I’ve commented on so far, Mr Shearer. Welcome to the red alert commenting team. I’ve said before to Mr Mallard and co that I think Labour MPs’ use of this site to communicate with voters is excellent.
I think you are being very transparent however in trying to target Mr Lotu-iiga, Ms Kaye and Ms Bennett over this. It is clearly a Labour Party strategy to win back the seats that it was most sore about, but the more posts that specifically target them I don’t think does Labour a lot of credit.
Spud, chainsaws have feelings too. And who’s speaking up for them?
Tim – I haven’t got an Auckland map but aren’t these the seats that more or less border David’s in Mt Albert. And wouldn’t it be terrible if politicians acted politically.
Mr Mallard the Labour Party can act politically all it likes, of course, but let’s not pretend that Mr Shearer specifically singles out these seats because of their geographic proximity to Mt Albert. They are the three seats that Labour is most sore about losing in 2008.
It’s all very well to target those seats to try and win them back in 2011 but I think that will just set Mr Goff up for more humiliation in 2011 when he fails to do that. Remember Northcote was a marginal seat in 2005, when Dr Coleman won that and now it is a safe National seat by any measure. Likewise the provincials.
I don’t think Labour will win any new seats in 2011. Going after them at all costs in my view just makes Labour look like sore losers in the same way that National was dreaming when it hoped to win in 2002.
Big call, Tim.
A repeat result in 2011 [edited -admin] is pretty unlikely. I can see more than just those three seats coming back. New Plymouth would have to be one to return to the fold, even with the slightest shift left. I don’t assume that will guarantee a Labour led government next time round, but all it will take is a solid policy platform, some hard work and lots of National incompetence. So that’s one out of 3 already in the bag, the hard work’s already started, too, next comes the policy.
Tim you say :- but let’s not pretend that Mr Shearer specifically singles out these seats because of their geographic proximity to Mt Albert. They are the three seats that Labour is most sore about losing in 2008.
Try telling Darren Hughes that.
And your confidence level is approaching John Key’s. Remember a week is a long time in politics and there are well over a hundred of them to go.
Looking at the Bill, near as I can tell clause 52 will prevent councils from enacting new regulations that protect all trees, while clause 151 will revoke all such existing rules from the beginning of 2012. Is that correct? Would adding a “starting from 2012″ bit to clause 52 allay some of your fears about a rush to fell trees, David?
Tim,
As you know, its the list vote that gets you seats- the electorate voting is interesting but irrelevant. Interestingly, this issue will be most strongly felt in the leafy Nat seats where the pressure for development is strongest.
I’m glad Shearer has brought this topic up. @Jennifer – you’re right I can discriminate against the poor chainsaws – we need to give them a forum to express their feelings – especially the ones who are secretly pacifist tree lovers.
I meant I can’t discriminate.
“It’s all very well to target those seats to try and win them back in 2011 but I think that will just set Mr Goff up for more humiliation in 2011 when he fails to do that.”
More humiliation? He wasn’t responsible for losing the seats in the first place.
Tim
Thanks. The electorates mentioned are ones where I’m receiving a lot of mail from opposing clause 52 and 151, but they are also marginal seats where National candidates won by only a few hundred seats. They are, therefore, the MPs who are likely to feel the pressure more acutely and who might want to change – and are best able – to change National Party policies. Ultimately, it’s up to them to reverse the decision. And for such an important issue as this, it makes sense to target. But as suggested elsewhere, this is a party vote environment and there may be many other National MPs in leafy areas where their constituents are concerned too.
So just to be fair and balanced, here is a link to the email addresses of all MPs. The more the merrier.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs/
with respect Mr Shearer I think you may have meant votes not seats in your last comment
Some observations
Trees are often planted inappropriately, both site and potential size
In some jurisdictions it can be impossible or grossly expensive to get a permit and if successful have a tree cut back or down.
Town planning has very strict codes for site cover building heights colours and even materials but I am yet to become aware of any such codes for trees
An inappropriate tree can cause considerable nuisance to an occupier and/or a neighbour.
Costs of thousands can be incurred to have a tree removed or reduced in some jurisdictions.
A number of occupiers are not planting native species as a response to some authorities that have blanket protections
Can you point me to an instance where jurisdictions are having a problem maintaining a good balance of tree populations.
The current policy of scaremongering of you and some other political parties in response to what a number of property occupiers see as reasonable reconsideration of rules around trees will result in some degree of panic felling as occupiers fearful of further apparent erosion of property rights, take action while they see they can.
I see some real merit in specific tree protections but very few as in our climate most trees make phenomenal growth and what seems a sad removal is compensated very quickly.
[...] leafy burbs will have more chainsaw noise than a Mooloo game. See David Shearer’s post for more on [...]