Dunne Peter: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13877] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I concur with the previous speaker about the apparent duplicity between the format of this legislation and proposals relating to the development of a hydro dam at Dobson on the West Coast. He will know that United Future takes a very strong view that that is a desirable project and will continue to push it. However that is beyond the scope of this bill. 
I want to speak as a Wellington member of Parliament about the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill which we will support going to the select committee. But I have to tell the House that there are some elements of concern in the bill as it is presently drafted that I would want to see addressed before we make a decision as to its further progress. 
This bill seeks to make it possible for the Wellington Regional Council as the successor to the Wellington Regional Water Board to establish alternative power generation opportunities on lands that have been vested to it or are owned by it. On the face of it that is not a problem. But 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. 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 upon any such wind farms or their equivalent that might be established and the conflict between that and good recreational practice. 
I have already indicated in writing to the member for Wellington Central who is sponsoring this bill some concern about the second issue which relates to the provisions of clause 5. It states that the functions conferred by clause 4 which relate to the construction operation and maintenance of any electrical installations and works may be performed by a council-controlled organisation or council-controlled trading organisation if the Wellington Regional Council agrees to that and if that organisation is controlled by the Wellington Regional Council. It is a very limited scope and we have some concern about that limitation. There is no rational reason why the limitation needs to apply only to trading operations established by the Wellington Regional Council and we cannot see any justification contained in the legislation the explanatory note or any of the correspondence related to the bill for that limitation. It is a matter that deserves some examination at the select committee. 
It relates back to the point I made a moment or two ago about the scope of activities that might be permitted. If there was better clarity of definition of that authorisation process and what the scope of those activities might be then the requirement—which the regional council presumably has insisted on—that only organisations that it controls can be permitted to operate those facilities would be lessened. That is a debate that needs to be had before the select committee and it is a matter that the select committee needs to tease out and get some answers to. We are not at all satisfied with it as it stands at the moment. 
I am aware as a Wellington member of Parliament that there is a keenness to proceed with this issue. I think the Wellington Regional Council has demonstrated a willingness to be involved in looking at alternative renewable energy sources and shows a degree of innovation in that regard. By and large the Wellington public—the “not in my backyard” syndrome notwithstanding—is broadly supportive of that concept. Those members who are familiar with the windmill high above Brooklyn will know that it is a source of great amusement and bafflement to Wellingtonians who love to go there stand under it listen to it whirr and wonder at its size and power and any new wind farms that are established will have that same element to them. But the problem will be that if people feel that their ability to enjoy other skylines in other recreational areas is compromised in the process they will feel less inclined towards the bigger objective. 
I think there will be some public suspicion about why the organisations to be involved must be council-controlled. In fact the facility at Brooklyn—the member for Wellington Central may correct me if I am wrong—is operated by one of our major power companies anyway so it would come outside the scope of this bill were it being established afresh. The Zephyrometer that members will be familiar with—one sees it as one comes around Evans Bay—is operated by Meridian Energy. That is not a council-controlled organisation. 
So my point is that clause 5 as it stands is unnecessarily limited. I have not seen any good justification advanced for why it needs to be so and I will need to be convinced of it before giving any support to the bill beyond the first reading stage. I will certainly be interested in the view of the council as to why it needs to limit the provisions in that way. 
As other members have said the issue of having the capacity to generate alternative energy is an important one. It will become increasingly so in the future. This bill is a positive step forward as legislation but the issues I have outlined do need to be addressed and the select committee is the place to do that. So at this stage we will be supporting the bill going that far.