Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18921] 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
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. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: 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. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: 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. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Yes. If the Government is happy for wind generation to be constructed on regional council land why does it not allow for it nationwide? 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 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. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 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. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 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. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: 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. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 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 35000 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 Makara 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. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I know that with this bill the Minister Marian Hobbs is not acting in a ministerial capacity as such but if she wants to sort out the issue of not having to come back and waste Parliament’s time with this sort of legislation on a regular basis I suggest that the Government could start by opposing the new clause in Part 1 that effectively states that only renewable energy installations may be built on that land. I do not think that that would do any harm at all to be honest. Will we find a large coalfield under Wellington Regional Council land? The Minister has the mapping—it has all been done—and the answer is no so let us not worry about that. Will we find a large gasfield under Wellington Regional Council land? The answer is probably not as well. But could we find a gasfield out to sea from the Wairarapa coast? The answer is yes we could. I am sure that the Minister’s colleague the Minister of Energy has fingers toes and all sorts of parts of his body crossed in hoping for a gas find out there. 
Why would we not then want to bring that gas on and allow it to be converted into electricity on regional council land? I cannot think of one reason why we would not allow that. The whole station would be about the size of a small Woolworths store—not very big. It would be very unobtrusive. 
Of course by the provisions of this bill the council will not be able to do that on its land so we will be back in Parliament with another bill that will state that the council can process gas because there has been a big gas find. So why do we not allow that situation to occur now? It is one way in which the Minister could live up to her wish to solve the problem of having those little local bills come through all the time. 
The inserted clause which states the provision applies to renewable energy only is silly. It reflects the sort of path that the Greens forced the Government down with regard to lines companies and their power generation. That clause does not make sense in this day and age at all and I appeal to the Minister to remove it. In fact the clause was not in the original bill; it has been inserted by the Local Government and Environment Committee and I think that the select committee has made a mistake. I encourage the Minister to take some time maybe seek a bit of advice and then say that we should pass the bill without that clause. The bill would still meet the Wellington Regional Council’s requirements and it would give the council an option of doing that generation on Wellington Regional Council land. 
I say to the Minister that there is a rig drilling in the sea off the Wairarapa coast at the moment and there would not be a member in the Chamber who hoped that that drilling was not successful. So it would just make it a lot easier for everybody and quite frankly I am sure that Wellington regional ratepayers would welcome a cut of the slice if energy were able to be generated on their land. 
It would also make sense in relation to other land owned by the council. A lot of that land is old water board land. We would find that there were bits and pieces of that land by the port and God knows where—throughout the Hutt Valley and all around the place. It makes sense that we should be able to put cogeneration plants and all sorts of things on that land. 
The regional council did not ask for the renewable energy clause. I know that the select committee inserted it unanimously. In my view that is a mistake and National supports the removal of that clause. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I can understand that at this point members may believe that the insertion of the term “renewable energy”—which was unanimously agreed to by the Local Government and Environment Committee as stated in the commentary on the bill—should be seen as and perhaps is restrictive. But I bring to the minds of members here who were members of that select committee that the chairperson of the Wellington Regional Council and the other member from the council expressly said in the course of discussion with them that that was the use they wished to have confined in the change of designation as it were that this bill will bring into being allowing them to proceed. That was made very clear to members of the select committee. 
The insertion is therefore in line with the meaning and amendments of the Resource Management Act. The committee concurred with that. Although it may seem at this stage that it is a confinement or limitation in fact it is the wish of the Wellington Regional Council the initiator of the bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to follow on from my learned colleague the Hon Roger Sowry because I think he is right. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I take up the point raised by Jim Peters. If the Wellington Regional Council expressly wants to ring-fence what it will do on that land as it has done in this bill then essentially it is pre-empting the public’s right to determine for themselves what they want to do on that land as per the Local Government Act of 2002 consultation process. We have taken away the public’s ability to work outside the scope of this legislation. We have denied them the opportunity to think of alternative uses for that land. That is where I think Roger Sowry has it absolutely right. 
I think that the Wellington Regional Council has erred in its fiduciary duty by specifying and confining activity on the land instead of leaving it open-ended so that the community as a whole could partake in a consultative process to clarify what it needs and wants. The council should have allowed that to take place. This process now means that that option is not there. If the community wants to use that land it will be able to do so only for the purpose of renewable energy and no other purpose. That raises a very interesting question about continuing to allow these sorts of bills to go through in relation to local authorities. In particular now that the Local Government Act of 2002 supposedly provides councils with the power of general competence—if one thinks that that is definitely the case—then there is not the need to have a bill that puts constraints in place as this bill does. 
We are supposed to be focusing on the preliminary provisions which include the definitions so I will reiterate the definition of “renewable energy” that I pointed out to Ken Shirley before. It means energy produced from solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal wave and ocean current sources. When it comes to energy generation I would think that given that definition of renewable energy at least we will not be limiting ourselves just to the consideration of wind generation. Other options within the definition of renewable energy can be considered. Geothermal generation is one of them and hydro is another. We can even look at tidal and wave power. So there is a far greater range than wind power. But I would like to reiterate that even though I was on the select committee in hindsight I think we have erred in ring-fencing what can happen on the land in question. The area is vast and a lot of underlying provisions apply to various parts of it. 
Going further to the definitions it is good to see that there are some definitions here and that they are quite clear because often that is not the case. In the Resource Management Act the term “sustainable” does not have a definition of its own; it is coupled with “sustainable management” and is included in the purpose clause. Another interesting thing is that in the definitions in the new Resource Management Act amendments an “iwi authority” will be accorded the same definition as a “public authority” so to all intents and purposes a renewable energy project could be under the control of an iwi authority as a public authority. A regional council could actually hand over that function to an iwi authority under that premise. 
Also it is interesting to note that in this bill the Wellington Regional Council has specified a condition. If only local authorities could do the same when under the amendments they have to give effect to regional council instructions in their rules and plans. In this bill if we excluded subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 4 the rest could stand alone. The land provision in clause 4(2) may still have to be specified—fine—but the rest could stand alone. If we excluded clause 4(1) the provision would still work. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I must admit that I have been a little disappointed with the contributions made by the National Party to the debate on this part. I was going to suggest that when Mr Sowry spoke he clearly had not talked to his party’s member on the select committee about these issues; otherwise he probably would not have made the speech he did. But then I heard the National member of the select committee talking and he had seemingly forgotten what I understand was the select committee’s discussion on the issue of renewable energy. It is my recollection that when the Wellington Regional Council came to the select committee it indicated that the only purpose for which it wanted this bill was wind farming. Despite the wording of clause 4(1) which is more general nevertheless that is really all the council wanted the bill for. It was actually through the committee’s discussion with the council in which I took part that we suggested that it might want a broader purpose in terms of renewable energy. 
The problem that arises if we start extending this beyond renewable energy is that non-renewable energy almost inevitably means some intrusive use of the land and at the end of the day this is Wellington Regional Water Board land. It is a water catchment area for collecting drinking water for the use of Wellingtonians. Introducing intrusive things—coalmining say or something of that nature—will inevitably interfere with the primary purpose of the land whereas the use of the land for renewable energy does not involve the same sorts of problems. Use of the land for solar or wind energy or things of that nature—certainly this land will not be used for tidal and wave energy—is non-intrusive. 
The second thing Mr Sowry seems to be oblivious to is that the land we are talking of is some way from the sea. We are talking about the Belmont Hills and the Tararua Ranges. Even if we did discover some oil or gas offshore the chances that we would want to use the Belmont Hills or the Tararua Ranges for the purpose of collecting and transmitting some of that gas and energy are I think beyond even the realms of remoteness. 
I think that when the Wellington Regional Water Board said that it was more than happy to have this bill extended from wind to renewable energy and when the select committee unanimously decided that that was as far as we needed to go and was an adequate and good way to go without running into problems of interfering with the water catchment area we had it exactly right. We provided a liberality that the Wellington Regional Council had not initially expected and that it was grateful for without getting into some of the very clear conservation and environmental issues that would arise if we started to interfere with the collection of water for the Wellington region. 
So I think that the effectively straw argument that the National Party has advanced in questioning whether the scope of the bill is too narrow in covering only renewable energy can really be seen as something of a nonsense and in fact certainly without substance. 
The other point that I wanted to talk to—and that I was initially going to speak on—in Part 1 is the omission of the words “council-controlled organisation” and “council-controlled trading organisation”. I alluded to that in my previous speech when I talked about one of the concerns of the Hon Peter Dunne in respect of this bill and its limited scope. Members will know that our agreement with the Labour Party for confidence and supply includes the freeing-up of legislation to enable public-private partnerships in the area of land transport. The Government has been very faithful in meeting that condition and we have passed legislation in this place that has enabled public-private partnerships to be developed with regard to our roading structure. 
We faced exactly the same issue here. United Future was keen to see this bill modified so that the development of wind farms is not simply something for the Wellington Regional Council to try to do off its own bat with the myriad problems that that may create in terms of local government organisations getting into business—and particularly into areas where cost efficiency is absolutely critical—and speculating to some extent with ratepayers’ money in order to do so. We wanted to see this bill broadened to facilitate the use of outside organisations including major energy companies. These after all are the ones that have the expertise in this area to enable them to carry out the work with the assistance of if appropriate and in partnership with local government—Wellington Regional Council in particular—rather than the Wellington Regional Council doing the work itself. That is the reason why clause 5 has been replaced with a provision that enables far broader use. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The United Future member who has just resumed his seat who says he comes from the Hutt Valley seems to be somewhat misinformed. He made the point that all those lands vested in the Wellington Regional Water Board cannot be used for any other purpose because they are confined specifically for the harvesting of water for the urban needs of Wellington. Earlier in this debate we heard him waxing lyrical about Mount Climie. Well as one who was born under the shadow of Mount Climie I can tell him that it is not part of the water-harvesting area. The water-harvesting area is in the catchments of the Tararuas and the Orongorongas which combined with the aquifers of the lower Hutt Valley with the recharge area in the Taita Gorge are the sources of the water. Mount Climie is not used for water-harvesting catchments so the member’s logic has gone right out of the window. 
His logic is faulty in another respect. I made the point earlier in this debate that if we do not want coalmines nuclear power-stations or whatever and if we really had confidence in the Resource Management Act operating as an effects-based gatekeeper then we would not need this sort of prescriptive process. As the Minister would appreciate this approach is against the philosophy of the Resource Management Act. This approach is prescriptive; it is picking uses rather than relying on the effects-based process whereby we can avoid mitigate and remedy the effects of certain actions—and if we cannot do that then we cannot allow the actions. This bill is totally contrary to the whole philosophy of the Resource Management Act and it disturbs me that we are going down this track. We did it with mining on the Coromandel and here we are doing it in specifying renewable energy and confining ourselves to that. 
Again what is renewable energy? I ask that seriously because the definition in the legislation does not make a lot of sense I believe. We have always thought that oil was a fossil fuel. There is growing evidence that in fact oil could well be derived from deep biosphere chemical seep because people are finding that old oil wells that have become depleted are miraculously renewing themselves. There are a lot of very interesting scientific papers around at the moment that suggest that contrary to the common belief whereby we just assumed that oil was a fossil fuel oil may well be chemically derived from deep biosphere chemical reactions. 
 Equally the same can be said of solar energy. Solar energy was said to be wonderful. Solar energy is nuclear energy. The sun is one big nuclear reactor—radiation is what solar energy is. So declaring ourselves nuclear-free is a nonsense. It is virtually saying that we do not want any sunlight. Logically saying that we are nuclear-free is saying that we do not want any sunlight because sunlight is radiation from a very big nuclear reactor that just happens to be a long way away. That is the nonsense of the terms defined in this legislation. 
I ask the Minister why she does not rely on the effects-based principle of the Resource Management Act rather than allow Government departments and Governments of the day to preclude activities like mining in the Coromandel and in this instance to say that we can have only one definition of renewable energy. There is not a lot of sense behind it. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call but one of the worst speeches I have heard in the Chamber—it was made by the United Future member Murray Smith—makes me do so. I know that United Future is not noted for doing its work on an issue but I would have thought that Mr Smith who claims to live in the Wellington region would not get up and give a speech in which he says that there is no flat land involved in this that could be built on. Well actually yes there is. Any tour of Wellington Regional Water Board land would show that there is quite a lot of flat land. 
Secondly Mr Smith said that we do not want to mine coal on the land because the water supply would become contaminated and the land is in the water catchment area. I say to Mr Smith that of course we will not be mining coal on the land because there is no coal in the Wellington region. It is a small detail I know but I am sure that even he—no I am not sure that even he could understand that. What we could do is build a combined-cycle gas-to-electricity plant on that land particularly in the Wairarapa if gas is found offshore and on the level of probability there is a fifty-fifty chance of that happening. Offshore Wairarapa is one of three areas in New Zealand where people are currently actively exploring for gas the other two being Taranaki and Canterbury. 
I would have thought that if United Future wants to stay in Parliament and stay representing some Wellington area people it would say: “That’s good. We hope we find some gas in our region.” I would have thought United Future would say that that would be tremendous. If we do find gas we would pipe it ashore and at some stage it would have to be processed. The gas can be processed in a building about half the size of a Woolworths store. About 1500 square metres of flat land would be sufficient to do that including space for all the necessary carparking. With trees around such a site people would not even know that it was there. 
In fact such sites are in Taranaki now and Mr Smith has probably driven past and not even noticed. He has probably not noticed the Taranaki combined-cycle plant. We could duplicate it in Wellington if this silly clause were not in the bill. It was not in the bill that Marian Hobbs was asked to sponsor. I blame Marian Hobbs for a lot of things but I will not blame her for this. She was asked by the Wellington Regional Council to sponsor the bill and she is dutifully doing that. I say to Marian Hobbs that this bill could be one of the last that she puts through the House—let us get it right. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh Roger! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It is nice to see the senior Government whip back from dinner. It would be good if Marian Hobbs got it right. We should remove this clause. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call either but I must respond to the provocation from National and ACT. I will not however stoop to the personal insults that are coming from the National member because I do not think that it is very constructive. The comment I will make is that this is not coastal land. If Mr Sowry wants to debate with me exactly what the water board land does comprise in the Wellington Regional Council area then I guess we could debate that all night. But we are not talking about coastal land and we are therefore not talking about land that would be suitable for offshore functions. 
In terms of the comment made by ACT in terms of Mt Climie the situation is that we are allowing all water board land to be used for these purposes. We are not saying that Mt Climie is or is not singled out. The fact is that if we give permission to use water board land generally for non-renewable matters then we include catchment areas—even if Mt Climie is not one. It is interesting to hear that the member was born under Mt Climie. That is news I did not know. But even if Mt Climie itself is not part of the water catchment area directly it is certainly within the water catchment area. Either we allow all the water catchment area to be used for non-renewable energy or we allow none of it to be used. 
Again I state that the balance is right and that in terms of these particular areas of land if there is no coal there then there is no issue regarding the use of non-sustainable energy anyway. This is an issue in terms of the Wellington Regional Council that is really irrelevant to what it wants to do and beyond what it wants to do. I will not spend any more time talking about it. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2  Electrical installations and works 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 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. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: 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. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 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. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: 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. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 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. 
JIM PETERS 
: 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. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 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. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 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. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 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.