Going before Parliament is the change to the RMA regarding the trimming of trees, not nearly the stake through the heart of the RMA needed, but a start nonetheless.

Ecologist Graeme Platt makes a great case, 'The fundamental provocateurs in the conflict are entirely those who possess no trees, imposing their will on people who do. Responsible property owners deeply resent being patronised with edicts on how they should manage their personal tree assets to support the nebulous concept of the common good.
He continues, 'Regardless of its noble intent, the introduction of laws to control the rights of landowners and the gardening public was fundamentally flawed – to such an extent that it all but killed overnight the market for large shady trees in the nursery trade. Once landowners and gardeners lost the freedom to manage their trees, people ceased planting them. It is now nearly two decades since the demand for large shade-producing trees was destroyed by regulation, with disastrous effect on the on-going development of the city's urban tree asset.”
I can't add much to that except to say, bloody well said.