Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill

I fear we will be here for some time on this bill. The issue I want to raise in respect of this bill is how the Government is able to treat the Wellington Regional Council quite differently from the way it treats other landowners, including itself, through the Department of Conservation and the land that it owns around New Zealand. The preamble explains quite clearly that the bill gives the regional council some powers to enable it to install, construct, operate, and maintain electrical installation and works on some of its land. The land that the regional council wishes to do this on is land, which it owns, in a windy position—which is relatively unusual for land in Wellington—and it wishes to install large turbines and, obviously, generate electricity through some sort of wind farm. I have to say, I think that is fine.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: That’ll be noisy.

Well, they could be noisy ones if they are from the company that the co-leader of the Greens is involved with, or they could be quiet ones if they are someone else’s—like Meridian Energy. That is up to the council.

But the issue really is that the council is being given, for reasons I am pretty keen to hear from the Minister, different powers than, for example, the Department of Conservation. We are not allowed, as of right, to put wind turbines on Department of Conservation land, but it will be allowed on Wellington Regional Council land. Why not on Manawatu regional council land? It does blow in Palmerston North, and a lot of windmills are already there. Why not on Auckland Regional Council land?

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: It doesn’t blow there.

Well, I have been there on occasions when it has been windy, and the reason I ask the Minister is quite a serious one. Tonight on television we see the Government pursuing major power infrastructure lines through the Waikato. A huge amount of power will be needed to be taken up to Auckland. That could be mitigated to a degree if the Auckland Regional Council were allowed to put wind farms on its land.

Why, I ask the Minister, is it being done only for Wellington and not for anyone else? Well, the bill is a local bill, and the Minister will say it is because Wellington has asked and no one else has. That is fine. I accept that. What I want to know from the Minister and the promoter of the bill is why the Government is not doing this for a wider group of people and whether the Government would support it being done on Department of Conservation land.

If we are going to do this, let us take it one step further. The Department of Conservation owns a substantial amount of land in the Wellington area, so why could we not be allowed to put windmills on that land? Why would we choose to put them only on council-owned land? These are the sorts of issues that we want answers to. They were issues that were raised during the process, and I think the Committee deserves some sort of explanation.

I want to raise one other issue with the Minister. We can waste a huge amount of time—and we probably will tonight—on private bills. We have to ask, at the end of the day, whether it is the best use of Parliament’s time to be putting through, for each of the regional councils, a separate bill to allow them to build windmills on their land. We could have a bill for the Manawatu region soon, and then one for Auckland, etc. going through this process. I do not think that that is proper use of Parliament’s time. It is just like the old rates validation bills that I can remember when I first came into Parliament. We did one for some of the districts about every year or two.

💬 Hon Richard Prebble: Waiheke Island.

Yes. If the Government is happy for wind generation to be constructed on regional council land, why does it not allow for it nationwide?

I would like to follow on from my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry and to reiterate the difference between what is allowed here for the Wellington Regional Council and what is allowed on Department of Conservation land. There are some areas of significant conservation value in the land we are talking about here with regard to the Wellington Regional Council, and those significant areas could be at risk depending on the type of activity entered into on that land. I guess one of the saving graces is the fact that there will be some consultation over it. In fact, there will probably be two consultation processes. One process will occur under the Local Government Act, whereby the community will get an opportunity to say what it thinks should happen with regard to the land. The other opportunity for consultation will be under the resource consent process if the council then, after the first process, decides to enter into a business arrangement with someone who wants to establish some form of energy generation.

It is to be hoped the council will be smart about how it does that and will gain more than it loses from that—that it will act with fiscal responsibility in handling ratepayers’ money and getting the ratepayers a return. But the question comes, I guess, about the sort of business the council would enter into, and whether it would be wind-powered or hydro generation. I noticed that in some of the previous speeches bird loss was mentioned. Bird loss is a significant aspect of wind power, as the birds get chopped up in wind-powered generators. Of course, that would not happen whenthe wind does not blow—not that that will be an issue for Wellington!

I am sure, though, that the council will heave a sigh of relief that this process is now coming to a close. The council must have wondered how long it would take, because the matter has languished for quite some time. However, I would suggest that a few more years will pass before the council gets to the point where it actually does something with the land. After all, consultation under the Local Government Act will be neither fast nor cheap, and then there is the whole idea of scoping the activity on the land, which will also be a pretty costly and lengthy process. Certainly, we can add about 10 percent to the costs for those that will arise from the resource consent process—probably more. One of the reasons for that extra cost will be that significant ecological values are associated with the land. They have been recognised by a number of local people who have an interest in it and in what happens to it.

The land is, of course, a water catchment area, with the water there servicing the needs of many of the communities. So it will be interesting to see whether the council actually utilises that water source for any purpose other than direct consumer consumption, as opposed to also having an energy component built into that. I do not think that Green Party members, who are proponents of wind-power generation, would necessarily support any hydro generation. They would use their influence, probably, to stop any of the latter. However, hydro generation would certainly address some of the landscape issues that would arise out of the promotion of wind farms.

The status of the land will also, no doubt, be raised, in order to clarify the existing obligations with regard to it, and to specify whether it comes under the Reserves Act as reserves or has been vested by the Crown in the council. In the latter case that holds certain obligations as well, and vestments usually have conditions applied to them. For example, in my own district of Thames-Coromandel, land that has been vested for airfield purposes can be used only for that purpose. So there are cases where the Crown does specify conditions around vested land. I am unsure of the status of some of the land in this area, because quite a range of land is involved, but I understand that the Reserves Act may come into it. I note that Genesis Power, a State-owned enterprise, has made a submission that has an emphasis on wind farms, which indicates an obvious interest in the land for that purpose. But I would be interested in the future to see whether there is not an interest in what hydro generation may be able to achieve.

New Zealand First members were not averse to giving the bill further thought with regard to matters that have already been raised. We saw this bill as merely a completion, and other councils have felt the same when past pieces of legislation have needed to be brought to the House to be resolved in their own way.

This bill in particular was about an area of land that was fully documented and, in this case, was vested for the use of water collection and forestry. It made sound sense to us in New Zealand First, and, I believe, to those on the Local Government and Environment Committee, to take this line of approach. But I also raise the point raised by the Hon Roger Sowry—that is, if a council is so easily able to pick up on the relevant sections of the 2002 Local Government Act, and in this case also to look at being a commercial enterprise, which seems to be inherent in the language of the legislation, then why do other Government agencies, such as the Department of Conservation, not do the same?

I think that that is a highly significant point. It also brings us to another issue, which is this: where have we come to in this country regarding energy when any local body or any other group is able suddenly to contemplate going into the provision of energy in a most haphazard and, in this case, individual way? It also begs the question, surely, that if this legislation had been part of a national strategy in respect of energy, then it would have slotted in as a small attempt in Wellington with regard to this newly found wind power, and it would have made good sense.

However, those matters are not really relevant to the bill before us. We are looking here at the preamble. Members of New Zealand First were satisfied, in the course of the select committee work—there were a few reservations at the start; submissions were made by the Wellington Regional Council and by the odd submitter who came—that this is a sound piece of legislation that will allow the Wellington Regional Council to get on with the business of energy procurement in the future.

The ACT party supports this bill. It is a very simple bill. It is just a clear-cut provision to allow land that was designated for the very specific and confined purpose of providing a water catchment for the Wellington Regional Water Board—my former employer many years ago—to be used for a further purpose. But I believe that the bill raises a rather interesting philosophical issue, which has just been touched on—that is, that we should consider the multiple use of land. We have tended in recent years in this country to compartmentalise things. That has often been driven by mantras and ideological nonsense. We can talk about a few examples of that. We have here a bill that states the land is primarily water catchment land and is designated for that purpose. But that is not inconsistent with it having some windmills on it, perhaps, in order to generate some electricity. That is fine, and we recognise the benefit of that. But then that raises the issue that I think my colleague from New Zealand First was alluding to. We have vast tracts of Department of Conservation land in this country, which perhaps could equally share multiple functions for the benefit of our society at large.

I will give some examples. We have the Resource Management Act, and the whole philosophy of that Act, as the Minister in the chair, the Hon Marian Hobbs, will be aware, was for it to be effects-based. Everything was to be judged on its merits, but what we have done over the years is to erode that. One example would be mining in Coromandel. Mining should be weighed up on its merits; it should be effects-based. If the community overwhelmingly says, no, it does not want mining, it can express that in its district plan or set standards for mining that are very high. But what happened was that the Government said it would decree that mining was a banned activity, which was actually in breach of the effects-based philosophy of the Act. We see similar situations all around the country, driven by mantras and dogma rather than by the sensible analysis of accepting that we actually have the effects-based safety net of that Act to judge whether anything should or should not happen, what the consequences would be, and whether one could avoid, mitigate, or remedy some of the adverse impacts that may flow from it. If we really had confidence in the Act, then we would not go in at the front end, as it were, start dictating land uses, and be very prescriptive in the way we do that.

Unfortunately, though, in the Department of Conservation and in relation to many reserve lands around the country, situations are driven by absolute and utter dogma. There is no development whatsoever, and nothing that could possibly conflict with the intrinsic, unspoilt, footsteps-only sort of mantra that that department tends to run. I would say, and I put it to members, that just as the Wellington Regional Council has identified a multiple use of its land, with its proposal for the generation of sustainable energy from wind power, then there are vast tracks of our hinterland, which tend to be in the conservation estate, that could similarly have multiple uses applied to them without in any way detracting from the values we all hold dear that are associated with that land. I raise those points; I just see an inconsistency there.

The other point I would make, though, concerns the restriction we now have in this bill that the Local Government and Environment Committee inserted, which is that any energy proposal be confined to sustainable energy. What on earth does that actually mean? Perhaps the Minister in the chair could help us?

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Renewable energy.

I beg the Minister’s pardon; renewable energy was the term used. That makes it even more problematic. I ask the Minister what on earth renewable energy is, and I would appreciate her taking a call—perhaps as the member in charge of this bill—to explain to us carefully her definition of renewable energy. We know that no matter is created or destroyed; it is just transformed. So I ask who decides what is renewable and what is not renewable. We are right back into the mantras and dogmas I have mentioned, rather than into the evaluation of things according to clear criteria on the basis of their merits.

I am very pleased to stand on behalf of United Future to take a call on the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill, particularly because the land that is predominantly being looked at by the Wellington Regional Council surrounds the Hutt Valley, which is where I reside and where I represent United Future. I am also pleased I was able to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. My position in terms of my knowledge of the Hutt Valley also enables me to provide some information to the House about the value of this land—some of it in particular—in terms of its use for wind energy, and the fact that it is internationally, comparatively, some of the best land in the world to be used for wind farming.

Renewable energy is something that New Zealanders have long adhered to, and our hydro schemes have been at the forefront in terms of developing renewable energy resources. In recent times the world has been looking at other renewable energy sources, such as wind, sun, and tidal forces. It is important that we as a nation maximise all the assets that we have, and our wind resource is certainly one of those. Over the last century we have seen energy use double, on average, every 22 years. I note that this has also led to cost increases. In the October 2003 issue of New Zealand Energy Outlook to 2025, the Ministry of Economic Development predicted that wholesale electricity prices, which at that time were 6.3c per kilowatt hour, would rise in 2020 to 7.2c per kilowatt hour, and in 2025 to 8.4c per kilowatt hour.

So we are faced with that pressure for a resource that there is more demand for, and we clearly have to fulfil that demand, otherwise we will have skyrocketing prices, but we will still be putting clamps on industrial development in this nation. Wind power, as a consequence of that pressure, is becoming more and more affordable, particularly in situations such as where Project Aqua did not get off the ground. The pressure on New Zealand to develop other energy sources is intense, and New Zealand does provide some of the best wind resources in the world.

The Tararua scheme that has been referred to, Te Apiti, is recognised as one of the best-performing wind farms in the world. It achieves a capacity factor of 50 percent, which is regarded as being at the very top of international scales. The monthly average wind speed it generates is 12 metres per second, which is also considered to be exceptionally good. I mention those figures because of the comparative figures with some of this land, which I will go on to.

In May 2003 the Wellington Regional Council approved funding for a report to look at up to four sites in the Wellington regional area in terms of wind farm development, and three sites were selected: Mount Climie, Belmont, and Puketiro—all of which, as I said before, surround the Hutt Valley. The report that the council officers presented to the council in May 2004, which was the latest report on those areas of land, is interesting. It notes that Mount Climie stood out as an exceptional site for wind farming. At Tararua, there is a 50 percent capacity factor, which is very high by international standards. Mount Climie delivers a 64.6 percent capacity factor. Tararua generates wind speed of 12 metres per second, which is very high by international standards. Mount Climie delivers wind speed of 15.7 metres per second. One can see that the value of Mount Climie, therefore, is at the very top end of international scales and, in fact, it is one of the best sites in the world for generating energy through wind turbines.

It is predicted that on Mount Climie, there would be the capacity for 63 turbines of 1 megawatt size. Allowing not for a 64.6 percent capacity, but for a 55 percent capacity factor, taking a very conservative line, that would generate 300 gigawatt hours of electricity per annum. To put that into language that we might better understand, it might be enough power to service 35,000 homes, or one-third of the Wellington metropolitan area. That is the significance of the Mount Climie site, and this bill facilitates Wellington Regional Council being able to develop that site.

Just by way of interest, of the other two sites, the Belmont site and the Puketiro site, Belmont was shown to be able to service 81 wind turbines of 1 megawatt capacity. If adjoining owners also participated in the development, that would rise to 108 turbines. Puketiro would handle 20 turbines of 1 megawatt capacity, and again, if adjoining owners participated, that could rise up to 62. However, the report showed that those two sites might at this stage just be economic, but I am sure that as the pressure goes on in terms of the provision of energy and as costs rise, those sites will get to a point where they will also be very economic to develop.

So I am delighted to support this bill, because it will enable the development by the Wellington Regional Council of those sites, and, in particular, the Mount Climie site, to benefit not only the Wellington area, but also the nation as a whole, as it helps to supply power that then makes the Wellington region less reliant on grid energy that comes from hydro resources and other resources.

I am pleased that we have been able to approach this on a very positive level, and I note that the select committee was unanimous in its view. Clearly, there are some concerns, which I will address as we look at some of the parts. Those concerns were noted by the Hon Peter Dunne in the first reading of this bill, particularly from his point of view as the member for Ohariu-Belmont, which at least Belmont is in; Mount Climie is in the Rimutaka electorate.

He had two concerns. One was the impact on regional park use and the other was the limited scope that the bill had in its initial stage of the development of those sites for wind turbines and, in particular, that in its initial format, only council-controlled trading organisations were able to develop them. As I will go on to discuss, and as the members may have noted, certainly the second concern has been remedied, and to some extent we addressed the first one in the select committee process and we have put in safeguards to address that concern. But as I noted, I will address those matters later.

So United Future is very pleased to support this bill and to see it going through. I sincerely hope that we see those wind farms developing in the shorter term rather than the longer term. I note that there has been concern, and really the only criticism of wind farms that has been raised—particularly now that the sound problem has been resolved with the improvement of technology—is visual impact. I am a little sad that Mākara, for example, is being hindered in terms of its development of wind energy because residents fear the visual impact. But I note the irony that although there has been talk about that in the Te Apiti farm up near Palmerston North, on the Tararuas, effectively the towns nearby are clamouring to be known as the town that the wind farm operates from, because they see the potential for tourism. All of them want to be labelled as the town nearest to the Te Apiti wind farm, because that will attract tourists to the town and increase its productivity. So from that aspect, I am confident that as these farms develop, they will prove to be welcome not only for their functionality, but also for the positive aspects of the visual amenity that they provide to tourism, and also to the local residents.

Many very interesting issues have been raised, and I think that we could prolong this debate for a long time. But we will not, because I want to point out again that the issues about the Department of Conservation, etc. are really outside the immediate scope of this very local bill. That applies to such issues as, if we are doing this for a regional reserve, why we are not doing it for the department, and the issues about multiple land use. Without going into the Department of Conservation side of matters, because it is right outside the scope of this bill, I will just remind members that the reason that this particular bill was brought in was local legislation: the Wellington Regional Water Board Act of 1972, enacted at a time when I think the focus really was on the single use of land. The Act did not authorise any development of wind farms or of any other kind of renewable energy on this land, which was previously owned by the Wellington Regional Water Board. So the council found itself utterly blocked by legislation that had been passed through this Parliament, and the only thing it could do was to ask for another piece of legislation to go through. That raised a point that Jim Peters raised, which I found quite interesting and I could take up, but I will not.

I will just make one point about the haphazard development of wind farms. I totally take the point, and the New Zealand Wind Energy Association has been meeting with the Ministry for the Environment. At the moment we have only guidelines, but it is possible that we will look at a national environment standard that may help regional councils as they start to address issues around noise, visibility, and other issues outside this bill. Regarding the question of renewable energy, I think it was pointed out to Ken Shirley as he sat down that renewable energy is as defined in section 2 of the Resource Management Act. That will make the whole issue easy when dealing with that Act and the Local Government Act.

The point that I think is really interesting—and I say to Mr Sowry that I do not actually know how to deal with it—is the waste of time on repetitive local bills. I really do not have an answer to that. In a sense, we are trying to correct legislation that has been passed in this Parliament before. I have found a couple of times that people from an older city, in particular, have had to correct legislation that was passed in 1890 and that somehow has never been repealed or gathered in. During my career in this Parliament I have had to spend several Wednesday nights in this Chamber, taking Wellington bills through. I certainly will take up that issue and have a look at it.

Preamble agreed to.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions