Kedgley Sue: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6175] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Jeanette Fitzsimons said this morning that the Government cannot disguise the fact that the true purpose of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is to remove the obstacle of public participation from the path of developers wanting to make their money at the expense of the environment and the community. That is absolutely clear. That is the underlying intention of the bill. The intention has been disguised by good words and so forth but the hundreds and hundreds of submitters on the bill are very well aware that that is the true purpose of the bill. 
One of the ways to remove the obstacle of public participation is through the notification provisions. The Government is tightening up the notification rules so that councils will have to notify affected parties about a development only if the effects “may be more than minor” whereas previously councils had to notify affected parties if the effects “will be more than minor”. That might seem to be just a minor quibbling over words and not of great significance but I assure people listening to this debate that the changes to those words are hugely significant. Some people have already predicted that they will effectively make non-notification the norm. Non-notification is virtually the norm already because 95 percent of resource consents are not notified. Only 5 percent were notified under the previous rules and now that they are being tightened up I predict that very few developments will need to be notified. 
It is a very subjective rule and councils interpret it differently but I can say that when I was a councillor on the Wellington City Council for 8 years lack of notification was the most common issue that I had to deal with in my constituency. People would wake up one morning to find a development going up next door. I well remember hearing from a guy in Hataitai who had woken up one sunny morning and looked out of the window to see his neighbour with a wheelbarrow. When he waved at him and started chatting to the neighbour he discovered that a huge building—a three-storey dwelling—was to go up outside his house without his being notified. A few months later all he could see out of his enormous windows was a great big concrete wall 1 metre away. That was a non-notified development. I could tell members numerous examples of what I had to deal with as a city councillor. 
An enormous building is going up in Oriental Bay that was non-notified. It has had a huge impact. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s where you live isn’t it Sue? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Yes it is. The building can be seen from this side of the harbour. It has had an enormous impact on the environment. It was not notified. Non-notification is going on and on. A 15-house subdivision was not notified in Waitakere although it directly borders 17 neighbouring properties. All of those examples happened under the existing rules but now that the rules are being tightened up I warn people that non-notification will effectively become the norm. 
I will use the example of cell towers in order to warn New Zealanders what will happen when this legislation goes through and non-notification effectively becomes the norm. When I was a city councillor I sat on many hearings about cell towers all of which had to be publicly notified. There was always a consent process. I remember the meetings in Ngaio and so forth and there were days of hearings. The telecommunications companies decided that it was very irritating and annoying to have to spend all those hours going through hearings so they lobbied the Government. First of all a provision was passed that stated that provided the land that is designated for telecommunications purposes was in a district plan then telecommunications companies could build cell towers on that telecommunications land as of right. Then the companies went round councils getting all sorts of areas notified as telecommunications land so they could build cell towers on it as of right. But then they wanted to make it even easier for themselves so they lobbied the previous Labour Government and got the so-called national environmental standard rammed through Parliament last year—an “environmental standard” what a misnomer! The standard allows cell towers to be erected effectively on every telephone pole in New Zealand as of right. 
The Green Party stood here in this Chamber and tried to oppose that Draconian provision. We tried to warn New Zealanders we did action alerts and we said “Wake up New Zealanders! You are going to wake up in a year’s time and you are going to look out of your window and find some cell tower being erected outside your house.” Nobody listened and the media ignored us. But what has happened? The provision went through last October and now I can tell members not a week goes by without my getting emails from distressed New Zealanders from all over New Zealand who have woken up to find cell towers being erected outside their homes. 
I was at a public meeting in Point Chevalier last week and there have been public meetings in Papakura. A woman spoke at the Papakura meeting and said she had woken up to find she had eight cell towers just across the road from her home. She is extremely distressed about it as are people all over New Zealand. People are asking me how this happened. They are asking how it can be that we need a resource consent to do minor alterations on our homes but telecommunications companies can erect some huge cell tower outside our homes without requiring any resource consent or notification of any kind. Of course the answer to the question is that the previous Labour Government with the support of National rammed through the standard that allows these cell towers to be erected as of right. We will have to revisit the issue in this Parliament because it is causing such distress around New Zealand. I hope the Local Government and Environment Committee will address the issue because we have several petitions on the issue before the committee. 
I use that example as an illustration; that is what will happen when this legislation goes through. People are going to wake up as so many of the people in Wellington and I am sure other places have already done to find that these huge developments are taking place and will have an enormous impact on neighbours and on neighbouring properties. Those people will find that they have never been notified of the developments. 
I assure National members that as more and more people find it happening and ask how it has happened the explanation will be that it is because National with the support of Labour has rammed through this resource management amendment bill and has tightened up the notification rules to the point where notification is no longer the norm. More and more people will then realise what has happened in the House—what is happening here today—and they will realise that Jeanette Fitzsimons was absolutely right: the purpose of the bill is to remove the annoying obstacle of public participation from the path of developers who want to make their money at the expense of the environment and the community. 
The issue of notification is a huge issue and hundreds and hundreds of submitters were concerned about it. They recognised its implications and there will be great distress in the community when they realise what has been done by tightening up the notification provisions even further. Thank you.