Deputy Mayor of Auckland Council Penny Hulse threw it back towards the politicians, saying that they were "responsible for removing the tree protection rules" and that "we followed your rules Nick and Maggie, have we got them right."
Even former PM Helen Clark, who now heads up the United Nations Development Program had something to say about the tree and David Cunliffe attempted to get some political brownie points by offering to climb it.
The question I want to ask is - will this case change the reforms which are happening with the RMA?
Last year the government announced that it intended to give equal weight to economic and environmental matters in any consent decisions.
While I agree with a number of the reforms, such as recognising the risk of natural disasters (the lack of which caused nightmares in Christchurch) and a streamlining of the consent process to reduce house prices, we must consider that this piece of legislation, flawed as it may be, is the main protection that is afforded to the environment.
I have no doubt that if we allow the environment to be destroyed that we are impacting our long-term economic opportunities negatively to a much greater degree than the positive impact of quick cash garnered by chopping down native trees to build cheap houses.
But this Kauri battle, with the heavyweights rolling in who are in charge of the RMA, seems to have exposed the fact that environmental protection needs to be tightened. It would be hard to justify spending $20,000,000 on Kauri Dieback otherwise right?
What will be particularly fascinating for me though, is what will happen if RMA reforms arrive that passionate protesters (such as those who got their big win in Titirangi) despise because of a lack of recognition for the environment.
Will we see lobbyists, buoyed in confidence from past weeks' events, chaining themselves to diggers and cranes, causing even greater problems for developers in the future?
