Shirley Ken: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Third Reading 
Shirley Ken: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19274] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will also be supporting this bill but we join with other parties in expressing some concern about activities the local authority could potentially engage in that we believe would be inappropriate. As far as this legislation goes all it does is recognise that those lands vested in the Wellington Regional Water Board—which was formed in 1972 and incorporated into the Wellington Regional Council in 1980—that were especially designated for water catchment purposes and forestry operations may have an expanded land use. We have no objection to that in principle. We believe in multiple land use according to appropriate usage. Obviously the local authority in question has the keenest interest of all to ensure that the catchments that are used for harvesting water are maintained in a pristine condition. The principal water catchment areas are in the southern Tararuas above Kaitoke and the Hutt River and also in the Orongorongo Valley. Those two prime sources integrated with the artesian water of the lower Hutt Valley form the bulk water supply for the Wellington region. 
Much of the land that is vested in the Wellington Regional Water Board is not part of a water catchment at all. The Whakatiki catchment which extends from Upper Hutt to the backdrop of Paraparaumu and Paekakariki is an extensive forestry area. Indeed it is a commercial activity. The Wellington Regional Water Board has a substantial forestry operation. As a schoolboy many many years ago I worked for its forestry department and subsequently I was a water scientist there in the early 1970s after the regional water board was formed so I know the catchments particularly well. 
The issue here is that the council now wants to expand the purposes for which that land can be used to allow for what is termed “the generation of sustainable energy”. In this instance that specifically refers to windmills. I see no objection to that at all to the extent that those lands may lend themselves as suitable sites for wind generation. Unlike Mr Tisch I do not object to wind generation; I think it is part of the mix. What I do object to is the undue emphasis some are placing on the role that wind generation can play. If we quadrupled our existing wind generation it would still meet only less than 4 percent of our power generation needs. That is not to say that it does not have an important role to play and possibly an increasing role to play. But like other forms of generation it is not without problems and Mr Tisch outlined some of those. 
Wind generation is very intermittent. With water generation we can have some reasonable expectation as to when it might be dry; it is predictable. But wind generation is both variable and unpredictable and that certainly causes problems in electricity transmission and supply. It can lead to sudden pulses through the system. Thermal back-up is needed to support that sort of generation. So wind generation is part of the mix but it is not a total answer. That is why I take exception to some of the language and some of the notions in the explanatory note of the bill which states: “In the interests of sustainable development the Council wishes to be empowered to use lands vested in it or under its control … for the production of renewable energy.” 
We still have not managed to define what “sustainable development” actually means. It has been in the Resource Management Act since 1991 but experts in the field still do not know what it actually means. It is just a matter of meaningless mantras. To be repeating those mantras in this sort of legislation—pretending that somehow it is all wonderful because we used the right combination of words—is very foolish indeed. The principle here is what land uses should be permitted. The ACT party says that there should be multiple land use. No one has a stronger interest than the owners of the land in determining what is appropriate what is compatible with other uses and whether one use conflicts with others. 
Of course the Resource Management Act should be determining land uses. Part of any consideration under the Resource Management Act is to weigh up impacts on other uses so we could call into question the very need for this legislation. It is really just relaxing a constraint that was imposed at the time when this land was designated and entrusted to the regional water board and subsequently to the Wellington Regional Council. ACT has no objection to the legislation as it stands but I just point out that it is possibly unnecessary and that there may have been better ways to go about it than pretending that we are wrapping it up in some wonderful new concept which in fact we are not doing. 
The other point I would like to make is that this legislation would empower the council to engage in the business of power generation. I think that would be a retrograde step. I do not believe that it is the core business of an elected public body. It may certainly make the lands available for power generation. It may enter into a commercial relationship with a private sector entity. But I certainly do not want to see local bodies under their newly given powers of general competence getting back into power generation transmission and possibly supply. I believe that that would be a very retrograde step and there is a danger of it occurring under this bill. 
The ACT party will be supporting the bill but we have some concerns about potential effects that we hope will not come to pass.