Tree protection rules used by six out of seven Auckland councils got the axe last night as part of the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act. The arguments over tree protection got a good airing in a sometimes stormy five hour debate but in the end National and ACT voted down a series of Labour and Green amendments that would have left Auckland’s trees with protection.
As it is now, from 1 January 2012, unless Auckland Councils list specific trees they want to protect, and they have said this is impractical, there will be nothing to stop developers and private landowners clear felling big trees if they so wish.
The only way to stop this happening is to make sure National is not the Government on 1 January 2012. My colleague David Cunliffe and I announced today that Labour will suspend and review these unworkable laws should Labour win office in 2011.
In the select committee and last night in the House Environment Minister Nick Smith rejected a sensible compromise solution from the Greens that would have made the consent process easier and simpler by having certified arborists or council officers issue a consent on site. The Minister repeatedly tried to say that Labour and the Greens were against consents for tree-trimming, when we proposed consent-free trimming during the select committee process.
I challenged Auckland Central MP Nikki in an earlier post to walk the talk, and vote with the Labour and Green amendments, given how much concern she has been expressing in the electorate on this issue. As I thought she would, she voted with the Government to ban the tree protection rules. But as the Herald pointed out this morning:
In Parliament yesterday, National’s Auckland Central MP, Nikki Kaye, challenged Environment Minister Nick Smith to assure Aucklanders that valuable trees would be listed before 2012. Dr Smith said he would write to each council in Greater Auckland and ask for its work programme for listing new trees.
There is some irony in this. Smith’s rule changes are an anti-democratic override of Auckland council’s local decision making and district planning processes. Having jumped in boots and all to tell Auckland communities how they shouldn’t protect their trees, now he is going to write them a letter asking how they are going to list specific trees for protection…something commentators have already pointed out will be so expensive as to be impractical.
Ms Kaye will have to explain her voting record to her constituents when the first trees fall. In the mean time she is getting it in the neck from her own side.
With all due respect, if you had any serious concerns for the trees you and your party would have voted against the RMA Bill.
In fact, you voted for the very changes you are now grandstanding about.
The chainsaw massacre starts in earnest in just a few short weeks, and Labour is culpable.
If voting Labour next election will ensure any land I plant shade trees on no longer belongs to me then it is just one more reason not to.
Keep driving away Auckland home owners.
So if Labour was so horrified by this rule, why did they vote in favour of the law change in general?
@ jarbury – We voted for the Bill, and fought particular clauses in the House by putting up and voting for amendments. We voted for the Bill because in our view the select committee process had significantly improved it, and on balance it struck a reasonable balance between preserving the essential purpose of the RMA while delivering some needed stream lining. Through the select committee process and through the debate in the House we opposed: 1. the change to notification which we think will reduce public participation, 2. the removal of the Conservation Minister’s decision making role on coastal developments, and 3. the ban on tree protection rules
I’ll probably vote for Labour, but not because of your stance on Auckland’s trees. Though, I do think that they should be protected. Sorry your amendments didn’t work out.
Phil,
Are you working on an alternate proposal? National have proposed a solution to a problem (no body agrees that it should cost $1000 for a consent to prune) which is comendable but floored (we simply don’t have enough arborists or time to list individual trees), do you have a compromise?
BTW in between all the work the ATA is making them do, the backlog of district plans and all the harmonisation of structures they will need to do over the next couple of years and now this, I doubt any Auckland council will have anywhere near the resources to do much over the couple of years.
Sorry hadn’t read your previous post- looks like you have already covered that.
@ frog – Good to see you here, I was just logging on to frogblog to respond to your post on this there. I am not sure I understand why you say I was grandstanding. Labour has opposed the ban on tree protection rules throughout this process. We have made our position clear publicly. We put up amendments to delete and improve the tree clauses, and we voted for all yours. However we voted for the passage of the bill for the reasons I outlined above in reply to jarbury. The bill is a lot bigger than just the tree clauses. The way the debate was structured there was no opportunity to vote against the various clauses we were opposing. It was voted on its entirety.
While you are here why dont you sign on with your real name rather than an alias?
@ Phil ” The bill is a lot bigger than just the tree clauses.”
So in the grand scheme of things – the tree clause that you have been moaning about wasnt that much of a big deal in the grand scheme of things?
Or were you really just not that committed to vote NO and make a stand?
In short – as frog says – if you voted for it – you really lose the right to grandstand.
So Phil, as part of your attempts to become the Government in 2011, you propose to take away the current rights of the rest of New Zealanders, to deal with trees on their private property , so you can appease what appears to be a minority of Auckland voters?.
You talk of developers clear felling trees.
Where else in New Zealand has this clear felling occurred.
“The only way to stop this happening is to make sure National is not the Government on 1 January 2012. My colleague David Cunliffe and I announced today that Labour will suspend and review these unworkable laws should Labour win office in 2011.”
[deleted...suggest you tone it down - Phil] you really think this will be one of the big issues in 2011? Oh no, thats right, its bringing back free crochet classes that will swing the tide back in your direction.
[ditto] you lot are out of touch. When you show you are actually above blowing on like an idiot about the most insignificant issues, then maybe you’ll get my Auckland Central vote in 2011.
Mr Twyford it seems Labour has a communications issue, and it is quite messy that your party voted for a piece of legislation but are now trying to die in the ditch after the fact over a small part of it.
I think also it’s a bit hypocritical for Labour to complain about the felling of trees in the urban area when Labour governed over the biggest deforestation in modern times in New Zealand.
And what is the connection between land clearing of plantation forest for dairying and urban area amenity trees Tim ?
Labour is now the ‘opposition’ its their job . Unlike you its their job to raise objections to what the government does. But of course you were prominent in exposing the hypocrisy of the previous opposition ,. No?
Phil
Understand that smart, loyal Labourites don’t understand your position on RMA. It may be there’s a subtlety to your logic but it’s too subtle. It just discordant and confusing.
Where does it cost $1,000 for a consent to prune a tree?
Tree consents are free at my local Council unless they are notified, which is very rare.
Phil, this was a bad bill. I will hold you personally responsible for it.
Parliament is our house of representatives, and every one that votes for a law is equally responsible.
That you voted for it despite it being rammed through under urgency is even more disappointing
We need not have.
Disappointing.
Hi Phil
I’m confused. Does the change take place on Oct 1, and people happily lop away if they so choose, or does it change on January 2012? And are we talking about pruning, or felling?
Personally I feel individuals have the right to properly prune large trees on their property, but that there should be constraints on removal.
Having a large tree is a responsibility and a privilege, and it should not all be about individual rights.
but you voted for it so why moan now
Topcat raises an interesting point. What estimates does the government have of the cost to local ratepayers for the extra layers of bureaucracy needed to identify and list every tree worth protecting across the grater Auckland region? And what work is the ATA doing on this to provide direction and leadership to the dying councils? And how much will all this cost the poor old tree owner? Smith clearly has not thought this out, chasing a headline as usual. Can it be true that Smith is writing to the councils asking how his brand new law will work in practice? Cunliffe is right to suspend this madness and undertake a thorough review.
@ Terry Moore – Under Nick Smith’s late amendment, people can prune their trees without needing a consent from October 1. Smith made great play of this in the House and in the media, but the truth is that Labour and the Greens had supported making pruning consent-free through the select committee process in order to make the rules less onerous.
Councils have until January 2012 to get rid of general tree protection rules from their district plans. They will have to specifically list any tree or group of trees in their district plans if they want to protect. Its madness. Councils are saying it is impractical and expensive and it wont happen. Smith said during the debate that Christchurch the garden city doesnt use general tree protection. Truth is Christchurch hasnt added a single tree to its protected list in the last 19 years. And many commentators say it has suffered significant loss of tree cover in recent years.
Phil
Glad the party voted for the bill.
Now lower income families can prune their own trees to assist the sun in keeping their house warm and stop the roots from damaging the drains.
This has the effect of saving $1000 for consent and $1000 for Greenfly to do the pruning. This $2000 can now be spent on food and clothing and school fees for the children.
Thus the parents are less stressed and less likely to take it out on their children by smacking them.
A win, win all round.
Mr Twyford, I’m curious that it was Mr Cunliffe and yourself who announced this major policy decision and the quite major policy plank that a labour government will reverse the tree pruning ban.
Is Mr Cunliffe your pick for the Labour leader in 2011, and is this the reason he fronted the issue with you? I realise Labour doesn’t have many constituency MPs left in Auckland but I would have thought Mr Shearer’s leafy suburb was more relevant to Mr Cunliffe’s electorate. Could it be that Mr Cunliffe is concerned because he lives in a leafy suburb outside his electorate?
Tim Ellis, you mean like John Key does?
That’s right, jennifer, and Mr Goff as well.
and Bill English…
Pentwig,
True pruning will now be a lot cheaper, but how does pruning the leaves prevent to roots growing into the drains?
If you prune to allow more sunlight, it will only be temporary, the leaves usually grow back twice a thick within 18-24 months.
Unless of course eyou use Round-Up instead of a chainsaw.
Incredibly disappointing, Phil. Saying one thing and doing another, also known as hypocrisy, is something I thought Labour had given up.
Effective pruning can be done with a chainsaw, you simply need to prune a ring of bark from the entire circumference of the tree.
Topcat
I was always taught that roots on most trees do not usually grow further than the greatest circumference of the tree.
eg Look at bonzai trees, surely the same principle must apply.
Spud, English is not a good example. The others at least live in the same city as their electorate.
LOL Jennifer… !!
:-O You mean Bill English doesn’t?