Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill

I move, That the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is an important bill for the Wellington region. As the member of Parliament for Wellington Central and as the Minister for the Environment, I fully support the initiatives of the Wellington Regional Council to provide for sustainable energy projects within the Wellington region. The council is conducting feasibility studies into a number of sites that may be suitable for wind generation, and, as far as the wind resource goes, those sites show considerable promise—but not today; there is not a breath of wind out there. Some of the sites are on council land that is administered under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972—a legacy of local government prior to its reorganisation in 1989. The Act constrains the Wellington Regional Council in its desire to make multiple, sustainable use of the water board land, as it only allows for the granting of permits for temporary occupation of the land for purposes other than water supply or forestry.

This bill allows the council to enter into any contract, agreement, or arrangement with any developer to produce renewable energy if the land is found to be suitable for electricity generation, thereby providing some security of tenure for the developer’s very substantial investment. I see this council initiative as a proactive step towards achieving the policies in the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, and certainly in line with the recent change to the Resource Management Act regarding the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Further, the bill specifically states that it does not override any of the requirements of the Resource Management Act. The bill is a measured response to the need to provide a framework that will allow for electricity generation on this council land. Joint use of the land for water collection from the valleys and for wind turbines on the ridges and upper slopes seems to me to be a very sustainable use of the land.

National will support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill, because it provides for the sensible use of Wellington’s natural resources to try to provide some electricity and energy. But I do point out an extraordinary contradiction by this Government. When it comes to Wellington, if Wellington wants to use some reserve land by putting wind farms on it, to try to be energy sustainable, this Government, which is driven by political correctness, says that that is fine and is no trouble. That is despite the fact that Wellington actually has considerably less reserve land than most other parts of New Zealand. Wellington is a very intensely urban area; there is not a great deal of open space within the Wellington region. I would like to know from a member of the Labour Party why it is, when it comes to Wellington, that we can have a special bill to enable Wellington to have wind farms on reserve land, but if we hop down to the West Coast, where 87 percent of the land is in reserves and national parks, this Government will not let even a small iota of that land be used.

Why is there a double standard? Why is it that it is OK to have wind farms on reserve land in Wellington, but it is not OK to have the Dobson hydro project take place on reserve land on the West Coast? Let us be honest about this. How much of the hundreds of hectares of reserve land subject to the provisions of this bill is used for recreation by the people of Wellington? There are 300,000 or 400,000 people living in the Wellington region, and that land is used quite a lot. People walk on it, bike on it, and use it a great deal. The Minister agrees with me. We asked down in Dobson how many people recreate in the 10 percent of the Card Creek ecological area that is required for the Dobson dam. When we asked how many people recreate in that area, the answer was zip. There is no record of anybody recreating in that particular area. So why is it that for this Government there is one set of rules when it comes to Wellington, and another when it comes to the West Coast?

I suspect that it comes down to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went down to the West Coast, and called the people there feral and inbred. We have all sorts of material from Ministers on the Government side of the House about non-discrimination and about equality before the law, yet when it suits them they change the rules. I see Helen Duncan piping up. Can she explain to me why the people of Wellington are allowed to have wind farms on their reserves, but down on the West Coast the Minister and the Government say point-blank that people there are not allowed to use reserve land, and that it cannot be done? The Minister of Conversation said it cannot be done, but it can. All the Government needs to do is to introduce a bill.

💬 Helen Duncan: I lived in Nelson for years, and I don’t want that project to go ahead.

Helen Duncan from Auckland says to the people on the West Coast that the Government will not let them use 0.03 percent of its reserve land. This bill represents 5 percent of the reserve land in Wellington. It is OK for Wellington to use 5 percent of its reserve land, but it is not proper for the West Coast to use 0.03 percent of its reserve land for electricity generation.

What does this Government have against the people of the West Coast?

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that this is a local bill, and the discussion about Dobson, which has nothing to do with the Wellington regional reserves, is right off the topic.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a good point.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That matter certainly has a lot to do with the topic. We have here in a local bill a mechanism to change the status of land and add to the functions it can be used for, so that energy farming can occur on what is equivalent to reserve land. The point that is being made is that we have an absolute parallel on the West Coast, where a small bill like this could allow the Dobson dam proposal to proceed. I would put it to you that that is a very valid analogous situation, and is a very valid point that needs to be made.

💬 Hon Mark Burton: The matter, however, is a simple one. The member cannot point to a clause in the bill that refers to the matter under discussion, because no such clause exists. This is a local bill. It is not a Government policy bill, and the member should confine himself to the bill before the House.

💬 Shane Ardern: Part 2 is actually called “Electrical installations and works”. That is the part that is relevant to the discussion raised by my colleague the Hon Nick Smith.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Often these matters can be rather wide ranging, but it does help to maintain order in the House if we try to keep within the ambit of a bill. I know that the member is trying to do that, and I hope that he will keep on doing that.

Why is it that the Government can come into this House and support a local bill for the people of Wellington to use reserve land for generating electricity, while at the same time a Minister of the Crown, Chris Carter, can go on National Radio and say that is impossible and cannot be done—that reserve land on the West Coast cannot be used for electricity generation? That is a contradiction, and it is untrue. It would be no trouble at all for the member for West Coast - Tasman, if he is half-effective as a member for that district, to introduce into this House a local bill that does the same thing that this bill provides for. There is a contradiction in Government policy: the Government has one set of rules for Wellington, and a different set of rules for the West Coast. Nor does it have any consistency in its policy in terms of wind farms versus hydro-electricity. They both are renewable sources of energy, and they both deserve the support of this House in helping to meet New Zealand’s energy needs. There is no excuse for the duplicitous approach of the Government, whereby it has one rule for Wellington and another for the West Coast.

I challenge the Minister of Conservation to speak. Chris Carter has told the people at the top of the South Island, where the lights could go out on any night between 5 pm and 7 pm in the next month or two through this winter, that reserve land cannot be used under any circumstances for power generation. He says that in one breath, yet the next minute the Government introduces this bill. So I want to hear from Chris Carter. I want him to contribute to this debate, and to explain to Parliament why it is OK to use reserve land for electricity generation in Wellington, but is not OK to do so on the West Coast.

I also think this bill is too narrow. One either believes in the power of general competence, or one does not. It is my view that we should trust the Wellington Regional Council to use the land for whatever purposes it best sees fit. This bill is quite narrow and restrictive; it only allows electrical installation and works.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: That’s what they are asking for.

Indeed, but I simply ask the member who is interjecting why we do not trust the council? It is council land. The council is democratically elected, so it should decide. [Interruption] The Minister Mark Burton says the council has not asked for it. I would suggest to the member that if the council—[Interruption] If Mr Burton would just get a grip on himself, I will continue. If the council came to me and said it wanted to introduce a local bill so that it could flexibly use its land, because the current legislation was very restrictive, I would ask it why we should not make it a wide-ranging bill. Why not solve the overall problem and, instead of just applying it to wind turbines, allow the land to be used for general purposes? Why not let the people of Wellington decide how they want to use their land as they best see fit, rather than provide for the form of restrictive regime that is in this bill? If the Government is genuinely committed to the power of general competence, it would say to the Wellington Regional Council that this is its land, that the council should have a proper public process, and that it should use this particular land for the purposes that it best intends, rather than have Parliament prescribe how the land should be used.

Members on the National side of the House support the bill. We think it is sensible that Wellington Regional Council can use the land for those purposes, but we challenge the Government to have some consistency between Wellington and other parts of the country. We cannot have one set of rules in Wellington and another on the West Coast. We further say that the bill should give the council a lot more freedom in how it uses the land previously set aside for the purposes of waterworks and forestry than this bill gives it.

New Zealand First supports the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. We are only too keen to assist the people of Wellington to improve their way of life. After looking at this bill, I have a couple of queries for the member, Marian Hobbs, when she comes to speak in reply, as I see she can. Under the principal Act the council is “empowered to establish forests and carry out forestry operations. For these purposes, certain lands are vested in or under its control as water collection areas or as forestry areas … The object of this bill is to authorise the Council [to] establish and operate electrical installations and works in circumstances similar to those permissible under the Reserves Act 1977, whether itself or by a council-controlled organisation or a council-controlled trading organisation or under any contract, agreement or arrangement.” That is a pretty broad way of getting an authority.

From listening to the speeches so far, I gather that this legislation will allow the council to establish windmills and wind farms. They can be pretty noisy, and they are not environmentally sound just by themselves. Because they are obtrusive and noisy, there are many examples of any number of objections to them where they are being installed or consent is being sought to have them installed. I note with interest that clause 6 of this bill states: “This Act does not limit or affect the Resource Management Act 1991.” I presume, therefore, that nothing can be done by the Wellington Regional Council unless it lodges a resource consent application, which the people of the area will have the opportunity to object to and be heard on, and that a decision will be made by an independent body as to whether this type of use can be undertaken and continued. I would not want, and I know New Zealand First would not want, to impose a windmill next door to where somebody may be living, enjoying his or her way of life, recreating, or walking a dog.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: But the same body will get the Resource Management Act applications.

I would be most concerned if the same body hears the resource consent applications, because that would obviously be a conflict of interest. I assume that the council would set up a commissioner to do that, but it would still be a commissioner of the council, and it would not surprise me at all if the application went on to an appeal straight away. So to those people who may believe that this would be an overnight type of thing—that as soon as the legislation is passed, effect can be given to it—and to those people of Wellington who may walk their dog or go for a stroll in what appears to be a reserve-type area, I assure them that the noise from a windmill that may upset their dog or just upset their enjoyment of a park cannot suddenly be imposed on them.

I look forward to those people, or anyone else from the Wellington area or other areas, making submissions to the select committee, where my colleague Jim Peters sits as a rule and takes note of everything that is said. New Zealand First wants to make sure that all the people of Wellington support this proposal, and that they do not feel that this legislation is one way of having something imposed on them that might not otherwise have been done in the ordinary course of events. New Zealand First also advises people that, in any event, the Resource Management Act still applies. We in this party do not want to see the Resource Management Act removed willy-nilly, because it does—and this is a classic example—help to protect people’s individual rights and their enjoyment of New Zealand as a whole.

The Green Party is extraordinarily pleased to support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill. Interestingly, many people have asked me over the years why, in this windy city, we do not capitalise on our climate and our wind by having wind farms and wind turbines all over Wellington. We do have one wind turbine up in Brooklyn, but that is all. This bill will enable wind farms and wind turbines to be built in reserve areas of Wellington. It is such a sensible idea that the Green Party is absolutely delighted to support it.

💬 Shane Ardern: What about the birds?

Some of the Opposition members have suddenly developed a great concern for birds. The truth of the matter is that if a wind turbine is built in the path of migrating birds, there may be issues, but for the most part there are not.

If Wellington, because of its wind, was to embrace wind farms—as this bill will enable us to do—we could be self-sufficient in energy within 5 to 10 years. What a fantastic thing that would be for Wellington! Within 10 years we could be self-sufficient in renewable energy. Mr Shirley is getting very upset about that, but I assure him that it is entirely feasible and entirely possible. What a wonderful vision for Wellington—that we could be self-sufficient in renewable energy. We could be impervious to the great energy debates that are going on around New Zealand. We could be certain that we, anyway, are self-sufficient in energy.

This bill is basically an extraordinarily sensible bill. It is one that the Green Party very enthusiastically supports. One of the concerns people have about wind farms, aside from the birds, is whether they can be noisy next to a residential area. This bill will enable wind farms and wind turbines to be built away from urban areas, so that we can get round that particular issue.

In summary, the Green Party is absolutely delighted with this bill. We strongly support it. We hope it can make speedy progress through this House. We hope that it finally will enable Wellingtonians to capitalise and build on the great strength of our climate and wind, and that it will be the first step in enabling Wellington to be self-sufficient in renewable energy within the next decade.

The ACT party is happy to support the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill, but really we have to ask ourselves why on earth legislation like this is occupying the time of Parliament. All that the bill does is allow the Wellington Regional Council, which has taken over the functions of the former Wellington Regional Water Board, to extend its functions so that it can set up windmills in these large forestry catchments. Why do we need to change an Act of Parliament to allow that? We are meant to have changed the Local Government Act in order to give powers of general competence, so that councils could have wide powers and do these things, yet we are debating a very minor little point—to change the status of land so that this council can set up windmills.

I am actually very familiar with these areas. My first job was with the Wellington Regional Water Board, where I was employed as a scientific field officer. Prior to that I spent a lot of my earlier years, as a young boy, chasing pigs and deer around the Ōrongorongos, the Rimutakas, and the Whakatiki catchment, which is most of the area referred to in the bill. I know it intimately. My job was to assess the water flows and catchment yields of these various areas, so I know them well. This proposal is to allow the setting up of windmills on the ridges and tops. Wind is a good form of renewable energy, and ACT certainly will support it.

But the Green members really are a bit inconsistent. They say they love windmills and are happy to support them, but there are downsides to windmills too, as with coal mining and damming rivers. With windmills we have to have transmission lines. Will the Greens support the transmission lines to take the power from the windmills down the ridge—big, ugly, lengthy transmission lines right on the ridge top? Green members are the sorts of people who would welcome the windmills but oppose the transmission lines. What utter nonsense that would be! Windmills do chop up native birds. Increasingly, the evidence shows that they do so in very large numbers. Some Green movements overseas are now starting to rail—excuse the pun—against windmills, because of the impact on bird populations. They also can be very noisy, and others will say that they cause visual pollution.

The real issue—which has already been raised, and I would like to do it again—is the point that Dr Nick Smith raised about the incredible contradiction and duplicity of this Government. The explanatory note of the bill states: “The object of this bill is to authorise the Council to establish and operate electrical installations and works in circumstances similar to those permissible under the Reserves Act 1977,”. I have no difficulty with that. That is fine. It is renewable energy, and that is good. But the energy produced by the Dobson scheme at Card Creek, on the West Coast, would have been renewable, too. The Department of Conservation has reserve lands covering 87 percent of the West Coast, and it was proposed that a very small area be used to create renewable energy—hydro energy—to produce 65 megawatts, which would make the West Coast self-sufficient in electricity. That is point one. It would also obviate the need to run a new transmission line from Lake Coleridge and Kikiwā through a national park; think of the impact of new transmission lines through a national park, relative to using just a few hectares at Dobson Creek! It would also overcome the power crisis we have in the upper South Island, because every kilowatt and megawatt that we can generate above the Islington power station alleviates that problem.

But for straight dogmatic reasons this Labour Government said that, no, an existing power scheme could not be upgraded from 15 megawatts to 60 megawatts. That appalling decision has been the subject of much debate in the House. I suspect that it will be raised time and time again until a future Government overturns that very silly decision of this Labour Government. It is absolute nonsense, and it is just a case of the dogma and rhetoric that we get from the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and Chris Carter, the Minister of Conservation, who does her bidding. There is no other rational explanation of why the Government should oppose the TrustPower scheme in the Dobson area. It is important from a strategic point of view, not just for the West Coast but for the whole integrity of our power supply. It would produce renewable energy, and be in a water-rich area. The West Coast does not suffer droughts—we all know that. It is a very sensible place to upgrade that power scheme.

That was reserve land, and the Government said that it could not be done there—that it was utterly impossible. The Minister for the Environment did not even realise the hypocrisy that she brought to the House today. Government members are saying what a wonderful thing for Wellington it would be to set up all these windmills on reserve land, because they would produce renewable energy. What is the difference, I ask the Minister, between this scheme in the Wellington region and the Dobson scheme on the West Coast? It is an absolutely duplicitous situation that the Government has brought to us today.

I would also, in passing, like to challenge one of the facts that Sue Kedgley from the Greens raised. She made some prediction that within 10 years 50 percent of the power generation would come from wind. Well, the facts are that if we quadrupled our wind generation, we would generate only 2 percent of our electricity demand. A quadrupling of our wind generation would give us only 2 percent of our generation. That is the reality of it. I am not saying that wind power is not important. It is. It is part of the mix. But what a lot of people do not realise is that wind generators are less reliable than water. Water is intermittent and flows change, but at least one can predict when it will be dry. We cannot predict when the wind will not blow. If one becomes reliant on windmills, as the Danish have found out, one then has to have backup thermal stations for when the wind is not blowing. That is the reality; otherwise, there is no power. So one might become more and more independent, but one is also more and more vulnerable. That is why, although wind is part of the solution, I put it to the House that it is a relatively small part. It is not the answer that the Greens and some people would like to paint it as.

We will support this bill. We do not know why it is before Parliament, as it is a very minor issue. We see no problem with it at all, other than the incredible duplicity of the Labour Government in saying that it is fine to have windmills on reserve land because they produce renewable energy, but we cannot produce hydro energy, which is an even better form of renewable energy, on reserve land on the West Coast. That is absolute duplicity.

I concur with the previous speaker about the apparent duplicity between the format of this legislation and proposals relating to the development of a hydro dam at Dobson, on the West Coast. He will know that United Future takes a very strong view that that is a desirable project, and will continue to push it. However, that is beyond the scope of this bill.

I want to speak, as a Wellington member of Parliament, about the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill, which we will support going to the select committee. But I have to tell the House that there are some elements of concern in the bill as it is presently drafted that I would want to see addressed before we make a decision as to its further progress.

This bill seeks to make it possible for the Wellington Regional Council, as the successor to the Wellington Regional Water Board, to establish alternative power generation opportunities on lands that have been vested to it or are owned by it. On the face of it, that is not a problem. But one of the issues that arises—and I am concerned about it when I look at the provisions of clause 4(2)—is that around Wellington, through the prudent management of the regional council over a number of years, we have a significant number of regional parks, which have been established for the enjoyment and the benefit of Wellingtonians and which are widely used. I think of the Belmont Regional Park, in my own electorate, as a classic example. It is true that the topography of Wellington means that most elevated sites lend themselves to being good sites for windmills—there is a certain substance that seems to blow through the air that makes the windmills turn. One of the issues that is therefore of concern is that, unless we are very careful, there is the possibility of a number of those areas that Wellingtonians like to think of as good recreation areas becoming distorted, damaged, or overtaken by the high windmills that would be used to generate renewable energy. There would be a public reaction against that. So I think that one of the issues the select committee will have to address is the scope of the bill, the limitations that might need to be imposed upon any such wind farms or their equivalent that might be established, and the conflict between that and good recreational practice.

I have already indicated in writing to the member for Wellington Central, who is sponsoring this bill, some concern about the second issue, which relates to the provisions of clause 5. It states that the functions conferred by clause 4, which relate to the construction, operation, and maintenance of any electrical installations and works, may be performed by a council-controlled organisation or council-controlled trading organisation, if the Wellington Regional Council agrees to that, and if that organisation is controlled by the Wellington Regional Council. It is a very limited scope, and we have some concern about that limitation. There is no rational reason why the limitation needs to apply only to trading operations established by the Wellington Regional Council, and we cannot see any justification contained in the legislation, the explanatory note, or any of the correspondence related to the bill, for that limitation. It is a matter that deserves some examination at the select committee.

It relates back to the point I made a moment or two ago about the scope of activities that might be permitted. If there was better clarity of definition of that authorisation process and what the scope of those activities might be, then the requirement—which the regional council presumably has insisted on—that only organisations that it controls can be permitted to operate those facilities would be lessened. That is a debate that needs to be had before the select committee, and it is a matter that the select committee needs to tease out and get some answers to. We are not at all satisfied with it as it stands at the moment.

I am aware, as a Wellington member of Parliament, that there is a keenness to proceed with this issue. I think the Wellington Regional Council has demonstrated a willingness to be involved in looking at alternative renewable energy sources, and shows a degree of innovation in that regard. By and large, the Wellington public—the “not in my backyard” syndrome notwithstanding—is broadly supportive of that concept. Those members who are familiar with the windmill high above Brooklyn will know that it is a source of great amusement and bafflement to Wellingtonians, who love to go there, stand under it, listen to it whirr, and wonder at its size and power, and any new wind farms that are established will have that same element to them. But the problem will be that if people feel that their ability to enjoy other skylines in other recreational areas is compromised in the process, they will feel less inclined towards the bigger objective.

I think there will be some public suspicion about why the organisations to be involved must be council-controlled. In fact, the facility at Brooklyn—the member for Wellington Central may correct me if I am wrong—is operated by one of our major power companies, anyway, so it would come outside the scope of this bill, were it being established afresh. The Zephyrometer that members will be familiar with—one sees it as one comes around Evans Bay—is operated by Meridian Energy. That is not a council-controlled organisation.

So my point is that clause 5, as it stands, is unnecessarily limited. I have not seen any good justification advanced for why it needs to be so, and I will need to be convinced of it before giving any support to the bill beyond the first reading stage. I will certainly be interested in the view of the council as to why it needs to limit the provisions in that way.

As other members have said, the issue of having the capacity to generate alternative energy is an important one. It will become increasingly so in the future. This bill is a positive step forward as legislation, but the issues I have outlined do need to be addressed, and the select committee is the place to do that. So at this stage we will be supporting the bill going that far.

I want to thank the House for its support to take this bill through to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and also for its intention to scrutinise it. I remind some members of the House that this is a local bill. I seem to have sponsored a fair few of them this year, and during my term as member for Wellington Central.

When local government—in this case Greater Wellington, which is the regional council in the area—comes to a member, it comes to him or her with an idea. The member takes that idea and talks it through with the council, but he or she does not tell the council what it wants. It is a local bill; it is not a Government bill. It is not for me to say to the council: “Oh, excuse me, but I’ve got a better idea. I’m going to tell you what you ought to have in your bill.” The member sponsors the bill through the House, but sponsors it through for discussion. If a member takes a bill into the House, he or she will be open to the rigour of the House, with members asking questions—and that might be a situation that is more rigorous than some others.

I want to take up something that Dail Jones raised and to tell him that there are real concerns around noise and issues of enjoyment, and around the enjoyment of ridgelines. I also want to make it very clear here in Parliament that of course this legislation is subject to the Resource Management Act, and I urge members of the select committee to please explore that issue right through but not to confuse it with the Mākara issue. That is a Wellington City Council issue, not a Wellington Regional Council issue, where we are dealing with Puketiro and Belmont in the honourable member’s electorate.

Mr Shirley raised the question of why we are using House time. The problem is that the Wellington Regional Council could not proceed with any work on this bill because it contradicted the Wellington Regional Water Board Act. That Act states that that land—which the member obviously knows well—is only for water collection and forestry, so it specifically prevents this. So I am sorry that we have to use the time of the House to do it.

I acknowledge that there is a huge debate on wind generation. I am very much aware of it in my own electorate, with Mākara and Quartz Hill. But the Ministry for the Environment—and I am not speaking here as local member but as Minister for the Environment—is actually working quite hard with local councils to establish up-to-date guidelines that take in all the work coming out of Denmark and other European countries—work to do with birds, noise, and other such issues. I point out that the windmill up in Brooklyn that is loved by some people in Wellington Central is very small compared with the windmills that may well be coming in. It is a wee baby of a windmill compared with those that may end up here.

I, of course, would want to see more renewable energy—certainly in the form of wind energy. I think that Wellington will be careful in having that, but we must also be careful not to lose all our ridgelines. The thought of looking from my house across the harbour and watching windmills on those purple hills all whirring at once does not do much for me. So let us use just a few of those hills, not the whole lot. With that adieu, I thank the House and I hope the committee will put in a lot of effort to sort our bill through.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.