Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill

I was not going to speak on this part at all, but the fact that the Minister refused to speak on the last part has persuaded me to speak on this part. In the debate on this bill people have raised legitimate questions, and the Minister has stood up and said that she agrees with the concerns and will put her mind to how the problems could be fixed. When people then gave Marian Hobbs a whole lot of solutions and she chose, basically, to do nothing, she invited members to seek calls in the debate on other parts of the bill, to ask why the previous part has not been fixed and what can be done in the current part to make sure that we fix the problems. I would like to know from the Minister whether she would be prepared in this part to make it clear that, for example, gas conversion into electricity would be something that would be enabled to be done. It would not be allowed as of right, because we want it to go through the long and tortuous process of the Resource Management Act, but at least it should be allowed to be done under this part.

The other issue that I wish to raise here is that this part states the Wellington Regional Council is allowed to construct, operate, and maintain electrical installation works for renewable energy on the land. That means the regional council can own the windmills on the land. I say to Marian Hobbs and to other members of the Committee that as a ratepayer of the regional council, I do not want Parliament to give the council the power to build and operate wind turbines. There are enough people who are prepared to invest their money in that. There are private companies out there, doing that right now. I believe they should have the responsibility of carrying the risk of that, not people who are ratepayers. I ask Marian Hobbs whether she is happy that elderly people on the Kapiti coast—and, indeed, elderly people in Wellington—on fixed incomes will be faced with a rates increase in order to carry the risk of this wind generation. I ask Mrs Laban whether she is happy for the people in Porirua to pay more rates so that the council can enter into a new business venture that private enterprise would be quite happy to do.

There are plenty of people who are willing to invest in wind farms. We know there are members of this Parliament who own shares in wind farms. Jeanette Fitzsimons is one of them. So we know—

💬 Rod Donald: The Green super fund.

The member rightly interjects. The Greens have put some of their superannuation fund into a wind farm. That is fine. I do not begrudge them doing that, at all. The Greens have made a decision. I would suggest that the Greens would not want to put their super fund into a brewery, but they have chosen to put it into wind farms. This is a serious point. The point I make to the Greens is that they have legitimately made a choice, and I think that is fine. But why would they make ratepayers, particularly those with a fixed income, carry the risk of the council investing in something like a wind farm? I say to the Greens that the council does not have a flash record on investment in business ventures. Many of us remember the “sesqui” debacle; I think we are probably still paying for it in our rates. This is a council that is not flash with regard to investing public money.

I want to answer two points that have been made in the debate. The first is the renewable energy question. I want to remind Mr Sowry that when Wellington Regional Council representatives came to me they said they were prohibited from using their land—prohibited from altering the intention of the Wellington Regional Water Board Act—because the land was primarily used for water catchment purposes. There are a number of issues that they did not want to have: large buildings, large roads, moving of trucks over land, extensive farming, or any of those other things. They wanted to use the land largely for forestry and for renewable resources, so they were quite happy with the definition that had been put in this bill by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was not contrary to their immediate intention as they expressed it to me.

Roger Sowry raised the second issue when he said that clause 4 in Part 2, “Electrical installations and works”, states that the Wellington Regional Council must own this energy action. I say that it does not. Subclause (1) states: “The Wellington Regional Council may construct, operate, and maintain electrical installations”. I take the point that Murray Smith, my Wellington colleague from the United Future party, raised. When United Future moved to amend the original clause 5, “Performance of functions by council-controlled organisation or council-controlled trading organisation”, and extended its meaning by doing so, the amended provision allowed and added to the fact that private individuals or a private company could invest. I think that was quite clear when Genesis Power, a State-owned enterprise, came and expressed its interest in possibly investing there.

This is not a bill that will automatically put an enormous cost on to Wellington ratepayers and a responsibility on to a council to run what could be quite a large enterprise. [Interruption] It does not forbid it, but this is not forbidding legislation and I—

💬 Simon Power: It is empowering legislation.

I wonder who is on her feet? I think I made those two points quite clearly. The first point was that renewable energy was something the council was quite happy with, as it did not conflict with the council’s original intention, and the second point was that this clause is not an instruction for those people to own the energy company that may go in there.

I think that some members of the Committee may be in some confusion. What we had here, despite the best words of the chief Government whip, was a limiting—[Interruption].

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): From the Government benches, and particularly from the chief Government whip, there are too many interjections. I think it is that member’s responsibility to show the way.

I was about to say that this is a small bill that came to the House because the Wellington Regional Council in its wisdom found that the Wellington Regional Water Board Act was limiting, due to a series of developments in the past. Part 2 is merely the enabling part of the bill, which is being used in this case to allow the Wellington Regional Council under the enabling arm of the Resource Management Act to strive, and thereby to enable the people of Wellington to thrive. In this case, it is with regard to renewable energy.

Secondly, the new clause 5 was inserted specifically because we were made aware by the Wellington Regional Council of the potential not for the council as the dominant authority to run an energy resource such as a wind farm, but for the council to be allowed to do exactly what the clause states—except that the council will set terms and conditions in accordance with its wishes, as defined by consultation and in terms of the accountability of the Resource Management Act. Those were the final considerations that guided new clause 5, which was agreed to unanimously.

Subsequently, it may seem to some members of the Committee that the Wellington Regional Council may not be the fit body to do that. That is a matter for the council to determine for itself, and will be the subject of adequate consultation in the wider Wellington regional area. That is what the bill states.

That was exactly the intention of new clause 6; it did not concern just the Resource Management Act. We had in mind, in taking up the enabling function of that Act, a clause that would enable the council not to be limited or affected by any other enactment but to be able to proceed.

In summary, Part 2 enables a body that is limited by the past to be creative and entrepreneurial, not necessarily by its own actions but by passing on to another entity or another group the ability to form what the council hopes will be a renewable energy development. That is what New Zealand First supported in the select committee, and that is what I support now.

I want to begin by thanking the Hon Marian Hobbs for her endorsement of the arguments I was making with regard to Part 1, and I appreciate her support on that. I want to talk on the amendment in clause 6, and in doing that I want to also take the opportunity of correcting an exchange that took place during the second reading debate between my colleague Larry Baldock and Ken Shirley with regard to this issue. In particular, I noted, listening to the radio as I was driving back from a function, that my colleague Larry Baldock talked about how some of this land was in Peter Dunne’s electorate, Ohariu-Belmont, to which there was an interjection from Mr Shirley telling him quite categorically, because he lived in the area, that this land was not in Ohariu-Belmont, and I want to reassure him that effectively the Belmont Hills are indeed in Ohariu-Belmont, at least to some extent.

But the point that I want to make with regard to clause 6 is that this was another issue that was taken up by Peter Dunne in his first reading speech. He made the comment, and it is worth quoting: “… 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.” He said: “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 on any such wind farms or their equivalent that might be established, and the conflict between that and good recreational practice.”

That was certainly one thing in the Local Government and Environment Committee that we were very aware of, and certainly we had one or two objections. Not many submissions were made, but one or two were concerned with the use of the land. That is the reason we amended clause 6; to make it very clear that the provision that said, in its initial format, that the Act did not limit or affect the Resource Management Act, could not be construed as being limited to that Act, and instead provided that the Act does not limit or affect the application of any other enactments.

In doing so, we were sending a very clear signal, we hoped, to the Wellington Regional Council, of the importance of consultation in terms of any use of this land, and in particular of the land for wind farming, given the value that Wellingtonians place on their recreational facilities It is important that there is consultation and accountability, and that the requirements of the Local Government Act, as well as the Resource Management Act, are followed in order to give the public a very good say in terms of how this land should be used.

But I would like to point out to the Committee that the select committee went beyond that, and effectively asked for, and obtained from the Wellington Regional Council, a written assurance that any application to develop a wind farm would proceed on a notified basis. Whilst we did not think we should make legislative provision as a matter of law—and I think it was outside the scope of the bill, anyway, to do so—we did get that written assurance from the Wellington Regional Council, and it is worth restating that for anybody who might look at the debate in the future on this bill, because of any issue arising. We did get a written assurance from the Wellington Regional Council that any application would proceed on a notified basis.

That then, coupled with the new provision in clause 6, does mean that, effectively, the public will be fully consulted about any development of this land for use as a wind farm, and will have an opportunity to talk about its impact on recreational use, and use by the citizens of Wellington generally. The Wellington Regional Council, I must say, were very happy to provide that assurance. It made it clear that it had no intention whatsoever to do things without full consultation with the public, and, more important, private companies would not be able to avoid doing that either.

I hear words about giving the public a say in how the land should be used, but I put it to the Committee that we have actually pre-empted that right. The way in which the public has a say on how this land can be used is, firstly, through the Resource Management Act process for the provisions of their district plan or regional plan and, secondly, through the resource consent process regarding that. Or, if the regional council is looking at making any changes that affect the use of that land, the council should go through a public consultation process. So perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain why we are now giving regional councils and local authorities the opportunity to circumvent the Resource Management Act and the public process on the use of land, by allowing those bodies to come straight to the House and put in legislation that circumscribes the conditions of use in regard to that land without that public input.

The Wellington Regional Council, by having come straight to Parliament, has denied the public a say—both through the requirements under the Resource Management Act, in terms of planning, and through the Local Government Act, in terms of consultation—in what they want to see happening with that land. The public does not now have that right, because this bill specifies that the activities on this land are to be for “electrical installations or works for renewable energy”. That has now been specified. The Wellington Regional Council did that, and Parliament supported the council doing that. But, by doing that, the council has actually denied the public the due process of the Resource Management Act and its planning provisions, and we, in turn, have assisted achieving that outcome.

So does that mean that any regional or local authority can now use a local bill to pre-empt that public process and circumscribe activities that it, in its wisdom—without going back to the public—wants to see happen with the land? For that is exactly what has happened here.

Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call, because, after all, the Resource Management Act does have a planning process. That planning process is a public process. It means that local communities determine for themselves what activities they want to see in their areas and on the lands that are held within those areas. Yet this bill denies them that Resource Management Act process.

It also denies them the opportunity to look at future planning and at the sorts of things they might like to see happen on land within their communities of interest. The Local Government Act 2002 is looking at 10-year plans—long-term plans and visions for communities. Yet this particular area of land—and I understand it is substantial—will have to be excluded from that process.

So perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain the efficacy of using parliamentary process to establish a set of activities that a regional or local authority believes, in its wisdom, to be necessary, without the local body having gone through a public process—a full public process—under the Resource Management Act for planning purposes, and the Local Government Act for long-term community planning. Neither of those processes has taken place. That has not happened here and it cannot happen now, because the use has been specified. The activities for this land have been ring-fenced.

In the select committee process we were concerned that the public did have a say on those matters, but we overlooked the fact that we had circumscribed the areas on which they could comment, and had not allowed the opportunity for them to consider completely different activities altogether, rather than renewable energy. So perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and explain why local bills are circumventing the proper Resource Management Act process and the Local Government Act 2002 process for community planning.

I want to thank Marian Hobbs for taking a call on Part 2. I accept that the bill is exactly as she says, and does not force the Wellington Regional Council to get into ownership. I absolutely accept that. The Minister is dead right: Genesis Energy and others will be keen to invest in wind generation on some of this land. I am sure that Meridian Energy and others will be pretty keen, as well. That is all really good, and I am very pleased about that. She and I would have no disagreement—in fact, I do not think anyone in the Committee would have any disagreement—that, given that we are giving the council the power to put the wind generation on the land, it should get out and do it with these companies.

On one point, I am not sure from the Minister’s comments whether I differ from her, or whether it is just a different level of faith. I do not like the fact that the bill is open-ended and allows the regional council to own those facilities. I do not have the same level of faith that the Minister may have that this regional council, or one in the future, will not go off on some nutty business plan and decide to invest in a wind farm. I guess it is that point that I want to make to the Minister and to the other Wellington regional MPs, who are very keen to prance around with the regional council and say they are the only ones who represent the district.

It is interesting that, apart from Marian Hobbs, no Wellington member of Parliament from the Labour Party—and there are several in the Chamber—has bothered to stand up and say whether he or she is happy about his or her constituents taking the risk. Winnie Laban has not been prepared to stand up and say that she thinks ratepayers in Porirua should be prepared to pay extra rates and take a risk. I think that is appalling. Those members should be on record as to whether they support this.

I give the example of the train service. There are people on the Wellington Regional Council whom Wellington regional members of Parliament know who want the council to operate the trains. They want it to take the risk and do the whole thing itself. I think the majority of the Labour members in the region, myself, and certainly the ACT members—I am not sure about United Future members—are at one in thinking that the regional council should not be operating them. We think it should be tendering that out to someone else to operate. The mayors of the region are saying exactly the same thing. In fact, the mayors are unanimous. They are saying they do not want the regional council to play with their money in owning the trains.

I think the mayors would be unanimous about the council getting into electricity generation, as well. They would not want the Wellington Regional Council getting into electricity generation. So I do not think we should be passing a bill that allows the regional council to become a generator of electricity. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of ratepayers. I believe that what would happen is that ratepayers on fixed incomes would object strongly to having to pick up the losses.

I want it noted on the record that some of the members who represent the biggest number of people on fixed incomes—and, in Winnie Laban’s case, some of the poorest people in the region—are happy to sit silent and let those people take the risk. If Winnie Laban were sitting on this side of the House, in Opposition, she would be standing up to say she does not want the people of Porirua East to take the risk. I think she would say that. But she will not say it today. I predict that in the future, when this turns sour, she will say that the council should not have done that.

Well, I want her and the other Wellington regional members to know that they will be held to account for this. At the moment the regional council looks like it is sensible. It is a good, sensible council. Marian Hobbs is nodding. She might also nod if I said it has not always been like that, and it will not always be like it in the future. That is why I am worried about there being no clause to stop the council from going off on some sort of plan and whim of some officer in the council.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.