Wellington Regional Council (Water BoardFunctions) Bill

, on behalf of the Hon Marian Hobbs (Labour—Wellington Central): I move, That the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill be now read a second time. The bill has been reported back from the Local Government and Environment Committee with five amendments, which I am advised are accepted by the Wellington Regional Council. My thanks go to the members of the select committee for their careful consideration of the bill and unanimous recommendations.

This bill is a local bill. It directly affects only the Wellington Regional Council, and applies only to land under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act 1972. Under that Act, the regional council is responsible for the supply of bulk water to the metropolitan territorial authorities within the Wellington region. It is also empowered to carry out forestry operations. For those purposes, certain lands are owned by the council as water collection or forestry areas. The bill will allow the council to use the land in question for a third purpose—that is, the production of renewable energy. The council is investigating a small number of sites to determine their feasibility for wind generation. The purpose of the council’s study is to determine whether those sites are feasible from an economic, environmental, and social perspective.

Some submitters were concerned about the management planning and tenure arrangements for the various parcels of land covered by the bill. In particular, submitters were concerned that some parts of this land, which is held for water supply and forestry purposes, have high botanical, biodiversity, and recreational values that are not protected by the original 1972 Act. The committee considered that those concerns fell outside the scope of this particular bill, but it has urged the council to review the land administered under the Act, and to assess the appropriate legal status and the need for legal protection of ecological and recreational values. The council already has an active biodiversity programme on its own lands, including land covered by the bill, and recognises in its policies and practices the value of indigenous vegetation. Nevertheless, the council has confirmed that it is committed to ensuring that its lands are held for the appropriate purposes, and that those purposes are reflected in the lands’ tenure, status, and management.

The select committee has recommended that clause 4 be amended so that it is clear that the bill provides for the construction of electrical installations or works for renewable energy. Clause 5 is to be changed so that the functions conferred on the council by the bill may be performed by another person, provided that the council agrees, and subject to any conditions that the council might impose. That will allow the council to enter into partnership arrangements, if it wishes to pursue the development of wind generation on its lands. A new clause 5A is recommended to ensure there is a clear link between the 1972 Act and the bill currently under consideration. The committee has also recommended that a new clause 6 be included in the bill. The purpose of that clause is to clarify that the bill is to be read subject to other enactments, and ensures that the protections that exist in legislation such as the very good Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act continue to apply in respect of the council’s lands.

These are constructive changes, and they are welcomed by the Wellington Regional Council. I would like once again to thank the committee for its consideration of this bill, which I warmly commend to the House.

Darren Hughes read that speech in a light-hearted manner and treated the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill as a joke. Members of the House need to know that Mr Hughes has about 20,000 constituents who pay rates to the Wellington Regional Council, and will pick up the costs, if there are any—and National believes there will be—as a result of this bill. But Darren Hughes treats the bill in a humorous and sort of clownish manner, which is the way he treats all the issues in the local area.

I want to say a couple of things to the House. Firstly, National has agreed to this bill coming back to the House, but we are not making any promises on where we go from here with this legislation. We will have a very close look at it, because we are concerned about the cost that it will impose on ratepayers. Mr Hughes might not care about ratepayers in Waikanae or Paraparaumu—

💬 Darren Hughes: This bill is not about me.

He says this bill is not about that. What the bill does is allow the Wellington Regional Council, which has ratepayers in his district, to embark on a risky project using ratepayers’ money. Does Mr Hughes support that? Oh no. He is saying that he just read the speech, that he used a bit of humour in doing so, but has no responsibility for the bill. His usual attitude is: “I’m a funny bloke. I don’t take the job seriously, so please don’t take me seriously.” That is the reputation Mr Hughes has, and that is the way he has treated this bill.

What will he be saying to the elderly Waikanae ratepayer whose rates will go up if the council’s wind project goes belly up? Does he have an answer? No, he does not. I ask him who wears the risk of a council embarking on a wind project. He smiles but gives no answer. Does he agree with the changes that allow the Wellington Regional Council to own wind farms? Yes or no? He will not say; he does not move a muscle; he sits there with his eyes shut. What will he say on the platform when he is asked that question? No, he will not say a bloody thing on the platform when he is asked that question. He will just say that he was reading the speech on behalf of the Minister. I say to him that elderly ratepayers in Waikanae and Paraparaumu wear a risk in this bill, if the council embarks on a project and it goes belly up. I have no problem—

💬 Georgina Beyer: Doom and gloom. Shoot the thing before it’s even had a chance to start.

The member for Wairarapa, who knows very little about energy, is one of the least-energetic members in the House. If she would just listen, she would learn something, and could take it back to her area. I am not sure whether the member for Wairarapa is retiring or staying, because she changes her mind every week. I say to her: “If the Wellington Regional Council embarks on a wind farm and owns it, are the Labour members happy about that?”.

💬 Georgina Beyer: I’m happy for them to scope it.

Ah! The member for Wairarapa is happy for it to scope it—

💬 Georgina Beyer: A visionary article—

She says it is visionary to scope it. That is fine, but the bill actually says it can own it. Does she agree with that?

💬 Georgina Beyer: They should be able to decide.

Ah! She is happy for the Wellington Regional Council to own the wind farm. So she is happy to go to the ratepayers in Carterton and Featherston and say: “You wear the risk.” That is fine; we know her position. Georgina Beyer has a position that the ratepayers should wear the risk. Thank God she has a position on that, because she never has a position on whether she is coming back here—whether she is standing again or leaving! She crosses the line all the time. I ask Mr Hughes whether he is happy that the ratepayers of Paraparaumu and Waikanae wear the risk. Oh no! He will not answer. He will be asked that question on the platform.

I have to say, as National’s energy spokesperson, that we have supported wind farms around the country. I look forward to the Government supporting them on the conservation estate, for example. That is the next test for the Government.

💬 Opposition Members: Ah!

They can sigh. The Government’s own State-owned enterprises are lining up to put wind farms on the conservation estate. Government members are happy to support them now going on regional council land, they happily support regional ratepayers carrying the risk, but I want to know whether they will support wind farms going on the conservation estate. There is no answer. They are not allowed to say. Helen Clark will not allow them to answer that question.

Georgina Beyer does not understand, and Darren Hughes obviously does not understand, that many ratepayers in these electorates own their own home freehold, but struggle on their income to pay their rates bill, particularly when they have only New Zealand superannuation. [Interruption] Georgina Beyer says she does understand; if she understands that people are struggling to pay their regional rates, why is she happy for them to carry this extra risk? There is no answer. I say to the Labour members that they can yell and shout all they like, but, at the end of the day, National will look very closely at this legislation to make sure there is no risk, and we will put amendments forward if we believe there is any risk at all to ratepayers.

I believe there is. Darren Hughes clearly believes there is, but wants to stay silent on the matter. Georgina Beyer says there is, and she is happy for the ratepayers to wear the risk. I am not. I think that ratepayers should be told upfront about things like wind farms, or any other energy scheme, or any other regional—

💬 Darren Hughes: You should run for regional council.

Mr Hughes says that if one wants to change it, one should stand for the regional council. Well, that is a really good idea for 82-year-olds in Waikanae who are struggling to pay their rates. What does he say to the people in Arawhata Road in Paraparaumu who struggle to pay their rates?

💬 Darren Hughes: I say: “Roger Sowry cut your pension. I am glad he’s going.”

He says to the young family in Arawhata Road: “Don’t vote for Roger Sowry.” Well, they are not going to, because I am not standing. The issue is what does he say about their liability. Does he think the solo mother in Arawhata Road should wear this risk?

💬 Darren Hughes: I think most things you have ever predicted never happen. You are wrong tonight.

The member says he is reasonably confident that I am wrong. I am sure the solo mother will be happy with that. I say that when Mr Hughes returns to the electorate he will have to answer the questions.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that we will support this bill going on to the Committee stage, but we do so with some issues yet to be resolved. The first point I wish to raise is that it is unfortunate that this bill came to the House from the Wellington Regional Council without there being a broader understanding of the past use of the land under the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972, and secondly, and probably more important, without an attached management plan. A management plan was not a requirement of this bill, but ought to have been an issue that the Local Government and Environment Committee did not need to consider. In other words, there should have been a broad understanding before us as to what the Wellington Regional Council was really on about.

The reason I say that is that it is disappointing to find that land that was set aside for long-term water supply—and in terms of that water supply, to meet the need to establish forests and carry out forestry operations—did not have those express purposes carried through in the past. No evidence was brought to the committee to establish that the prime requirement of the water board Act had been carried out. There was no indication today that the land, which was held for water supply and forestry purposes—and we were assured by some submitters there were very high botanical, biodiversity, and other recreational values implicit in this block of land—had been provided for in any short-term, medium-term, or long-term management plan. Although we urged in the preamble that the regional council do those things, there is nothing binding upon it to do so.

The other unfortunate issue that I wish to bring before the House is that the Local Government Act of 2002 gave to regional councils and to other councils a very expansive role. In that role there are three so-called well-being matters provided for in the Act. It is very disappointing to see many councils picking up that expansive role, and going ahead and developing plans and spending budgets that are far beyond the capacity of their councils now. In some cases they are incurring debt simply because under the 2002 Act the long-term community plan empowered them to go about such actions. In the development of such plans by many councils, there has been a very cursory examination of them by ratepayers. Many councils have not done thorough, long-term, and on-going consultation. The result is that ratepayers, 2 years later—in 2005 and 2006—are to be subjected to the comment by councils that they proposed doing something in the community plan, and are now going to do it. I fear that in this case, the Wellington Regional Council may do the same as that. It is the pattern I am observing at present, and observed last year.

The permissiveness that the Act gave was not mandatory. It was a permissive Act that provided that councils could carry out various activities under the legislation, and many councils are not using that permissiveness wisely. They are certainly not using it wisely in terms of the financial capacities and other capacities of their ratepayers, bearing in mind the burden of extravagant council planning. We in New Zealand First give a message to the Wellington Regional Council to have a care for its ratepayers—the situation is exactly the same as the Hon Roger Sowry has just said—before it embarks upon any developments under this legislation.

The select committee, in the course of its work, made some changes to the bill. In particular we have made a change to clause 4 in Part 2, which states that the Wellington Regional Council may “construct, operate, and maintain electrical installations or works for renewable energy on the land”. That was because we had the concept of wind power in mind. It is strange that right now wind power seems to be the perceived wisdom of those who have the idea that it will suddenly and at last solve our energy problems. That is very fine, but the rural people whom I talk to are very, very fearful of wind power operation—first of all because of the ungainly sight of it, and second because of the whirring noises, which never seem to cease. Anyone who has talked to those who live by a wind farm in the United Kingdom will say just that. Of course, that fact does not concern most of us who live in towns or in the middle of Wellington, because the wind farms are in somebody else’s backyard. But I say wind power is not the answer that it may seem to be if the wind farm is sited on one’s back door. Therefore, to some degree if the Wellington Regional Council is allowed to establish and maintain those electrical installations, provided it bears in mind the amenity values, the sites, and so on that will be affected by those strange whirring creatures, that may be fine.

But we are still somewhat uncertain as to the intention of the Wellington Regional Council. I, too, concur with the Hon Roger Sowry, because although the regional council gave us an assurance that it would follow the legal requirements, I was still left with the uncomfortable feeling that the notified basis for consents was not being preserved in this bill. If we relate that to what I have just said about long-term community plans and the annual planning of councils going on virtually unheralded but certainly not unrated, it is very, very disappointing to see the ability of any council to carry out non-notified works of this type. The only assurance we had was to the extent allowed by the law. I would have thought, personally, that the regional council should have been very fulsome and said absolutely that there would be a notified basis to any application. The people who came to the select committee from the council said almost that, but did not quite give a real assurance.

We support the bill going on to the Committee stage. We hope to have answers to the questions raised by the last speaker, and raised by us in regard to the still uncertain nature of whether there will be a notified consent process, and on exactly what the regional council has in mind with regard to a third party building, operating, and maintaining an electrical installation on the land. But most important of all, we would want to see greater assurance from the Minister in the Committee stage that the long-term management plans, which we do not have the ability to seek under this bill, will be at the forefront of the council’s mind before it embarks upon any extensive industrial development such as wind farms.

So New Zealand First supports this bill going to the Committee stage. We do not give an assurance that we will support it further than that, but we await the developments and discussions during the Committee stage.

The ACT party shares many of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate thus far. We will support the bill going on to the Committee of the whole House. Essentially what we are saying here is that there is a block of land surrounding the hinterland of Wellington that is now vested in the Wellington Regional Council, but that is still covered under the old Wellington Regional Water Board Act. I am very familiar with that land. My first couple of years as a graduate back in the early 1970s were spent working for the Wellington Regional Water Board, and I am very familiar with the catchments of the Ōrongorongos, the Tararuas, and the Akatarawas, etc. There is a lot of land up there—a lot of essentially publicly owned land—and a lot of recreational use on that land. Although some of the catchments are protected from public access because of the nature of the water supply, there are sites up there where we could have wind generation. Because there are remote, isolated sites the wind farms would not necessarily be too obtrusive, or the farms could be sited so they would not be intrusive, and so any low-grade humming noise would not interfere with residents or adjacent landowners. There is a logic to that.

In saying that, I have to acknowledge the concern that the council may start to engage in power generation as a core business. That would worry me. I think we went down the wrong track when we passed the Local Government Act of 2002, which essentially gave the power of general competence to local bodies. Clearly, local bodies are an extension of governance. Their powers are granted by central government, and those powers should be very clearly defined. But that Act essentially stated that central government was washing its hands of that responsibility and allowing a free-for-all situation, whereby councils could do whatever they wanted to engage in. It stated that councils could have free range to put their hands into the ratepayers’ pockets and get into all sorts of businesses, competing with the private sector and engaging in things that are non-core activities for local bodies. We are starting to see that to a very worrying extent. Councils do not have the same disciplines that private companies have. They can just go more deeply into the ratepayers’ pockets and engage in businesses that they should not be engaging in.

I note that a heading in the report back on the bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee states: “Council may authorise third-party use of the land for renewable energy generation”. There is logic in that, if Meridian Energy, Genesis Power, or any private energy company wants to come along to the council. But it is implied there that the council may enter into public-private partnerships with those companies—that the council will not be able to resist taking a shareholding in the business, rather than just charging the company a rental for the site.

The other curious thing is the incredible emphasis on renewable energy. It was actually inserted in the bill by the select committee that the provision is confined and restricted to renewable energy. I guess that is explained by the fact that the chair of the select committee is Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Green Party, and of course the big thing trumpeted by the Green Party is renewable energy only. The point has already been made that it is implied that the salvation of New Zealand’s energy needs—and we do have pressing energy needs—is renewable energy. What absolute nonsense that is! If we doubled the amount of wind power generated in this country, we would still only meet less than 3 percent of our power demand. That puts it into perspective. The point has already been made that the big wind farms are not without problems. They will have to run the gauntlet of the Resource Management Act, too. They are obtrusive, very unsightly—for anyone with a farming property who wakes up every day and looks at a wind farm, it is a real problem—and noisy. They are very noisy, and it is a very irritating noise: a steady, unforgiving hum.

Finally, I make the point that although environmentalists love wind power, people in California are finding that wind farms are chopping up native birds by the score. Wind farms are destroying the native flora and fauna far more than coal ever did—they are chopping them up. In California, whole flocks of bald eagles are flying into the propellers of wind farms, and all that is coming out is a lot of feathers and dust—they are getting chopped to pieces in the wind farms. I wonder what the Greens will say when the environmentalists of the future find that it is not coal that is the big energy bogey but wind farms, because they are chopping up native birds. I do not think the Greens have actually realised the lack of robustness of their case.

Be that as it may, I think there are sites on this land that are appropriate for wind farms. I am not against wind farms; I believe that wind power should be part of our energy mix. To the extent that there are sites on the land that may be able to be used for that purpose, then that is a good thing in itself. But I flag the concern that we do not want the regional council to spend ratepayers’ money on engaging in activities that are not its core business.

Many of the concerns identified by Ken Shirley and Roger Sowry are issues that we will certainly be considering during the Committee stage. One of our concerns is that the power of general competence given to councils under the Local Government Act 2002 will give them the opportunity to foist on ratepayers a commitment that they would not otherwise have entered into. That is why we opposed that particular provision when we debated that legislation a couple of years ago.

Once it is passed, this bill will allow the council to commit the ratepayers of a particular area to carrying the risk of involvement in the energy sector and the huge compliance costs associated with that. Who will pay at the end of the day if something goes wrong? It will be those who are on fixed incomes. It will be the superannuitants who do not have the means to generate any other income, and it will be the people who are on benefits. They are the ones who will carry the can for a piece of legislation brought in because the Wellington Regional Council wants to move into energy—which, along with roading, is one of the main infrastructural challenges facing New Zealand.

The concept of this bill is fine. We understand that we have an issue and a challenge with energy. In our view, though, we must realise that the costs that will be imposed by the regional council are too risky. This is part of risk management, and during the Committee stage we will certainly be looking closely to see whether the risks are justified by the merits. If we look at what wind farms actually do, we see that they are not as successful as one might expect. The big towers sitting in the wind zones are a blight on the landscape. They can operate only when the wind blows between 5 and 25 kilometres an hour. Over that, they do not work; they have to be shut down.

The cost of maintaining these machines—or whatever we should call them—is absolutely horrendous. I was in Australia in November, looking at coal production in Newcastle and throughout the Hunter Valley, where there is a wind operation. The costs of generating power from wind farms there make it so inefficient that it is hardly worth the effort.

The other point I want to make is that wind farms operate on only 40 percent efficiency. A tower produces 1 megawatt of power. That is not very much, considering that the Huntly power station puts out about 1,000 megawatts. We would need a lot of those structures on the landscape to produce the sort of power that one would expect. In fact, in the United States they are actually closing wind farms down, because they have found that wind farms are not as efficient as they should be. One could say—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: The Greens were wrong.

The Greens were wrong, yes. We have plenty of wind, but we need to look at the restrictions that are placed on wind farms and we need to look at how to get the efficiencies out of them that one would expect. In Denmark one sees wind farms in the sea. That is where they are positioned—off the land, in the sea. They have been there for some time, but even today their maintenance costs are absolutely horrendous.

We know that energy is an important challenge facing New Zealand, and certainly steps are being taken by some of the generators to address that challenge. In my area, the Genesis power station at Huntly is looking to expand its operation, moving away from gas and further into coal. In Taupō a private company is moving further into geothermal power. It was in the news over the Christmas break that there has been private investment in geothermal power. But when it comes to what we are looking at here—a council being involved in a commercial operation—I ask whether that is its core function. I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that a council should be involved in a commercial operation, but the powers of general competency under the Local Government Act 2002 actually allow that to happen.

So one of our concerns is the risk that will be foisted on the ratepayers of the Wellington region. We will be looking very closely during the Committee stage at whether this risk is worthwhile, whether there is a net benefit, and the cost-benefit ratio for a council involved in the energy sector. At this stage, we certainly have our doubts.

Looking at the commentary, I note that at the bottom of page 3 it is stated that the Local Government and Environment Committee urges the council “to review the land administered under the Act, to assess its appropriate legal status; the need for legal protection” of certain values. But one of the things that it does not mention is the impact on land values. In my earlier days as a valuer, one of the areas we looked at were the issues that affected land values. Throughout the Waikato we will see with Transpower’s proposal to put 70-metre pylons right through the Waikato region to Auckland, that the impact on land values will be absolutely horrendous. Already there is much concern expressed by landowners—be they farmers or lifestyle people—that the effect on values in that area will be considerable.

One of the factors that is not mentioned in this bill specifically, although it includes landscape and recreational values, is the impact of these towers from wind farms on land values. These are issues that, during the Committee stage, National will be exploring as we look to see where there is a net benefit in this proposal. But we will be supporting the bill through to the Committee stage.

I rise on behalf of United Future to take a short call on this bill, which of course is of great interest to those who live in the Wellington area and particularly to those in the Ohariu-Belmont electorate, where this proposed wind farm could occur and where Belmont Regional Park is located. When Peter Dunne spoke in the first reading of this bill he made some points very clear.

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: It’s in the Rimutaka electorate.

I may have the electorate wrong, and I thank Mr Shirley. Mr Dunne has great concerns about all New Zealanders, so he would have represented the people in that constituency, as well.

One of the concerns Peter Dunne raised in the first reading was the issue of Belmont Regional Park. It is pleasing to see that the Local Government and Environment Committee has taken note of those issues and also the issues presented by submitters. The words in clause 6 of the bill have been extended from saying that nothing in this legislation will affect the Resource Management Act to stating that this legislation will not affect “any other enactment”, so that the Local Government Act and, in particular, its consultation processes would come into effect.

One of the concerns that has been discussed already in the debate is public concern about wind farms being established in areas where people do not think they are as great an answer to our power energy needs as some may promote. In fact, it is rather ironic that the Green Party thinks we can solve all our problems by having wind farms all over the country, and now people are talking about carbon dioxide being pollution in the atmosphere. Yet carbon dioxide, as the great environmentalist David Bellamy once said, is simply a fertiliser that plants rather like.

The answer to all our problems with energy is not just to put wind farms up all over the country. They can play a useful role in providing some energy, but the public are very concerned about open spaces, skylines, and what they see on the horizon. That is why there has been quite a bit of concern expressed in the submissions on this legislation.

We are comfortable that some amendments have been made by the select committee, and we look forward to further debate at the Committee stage on that particular issue. I think at that point we will allow the debate to continue at the Committee stage, to make sure that when this bill finally comes out of the House, it is the very best legislation that it can be.

Bill read a second time.