Tisch Lindsay: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18510] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Many of the concerns identified by Ken Shirley and Roger Sowry are issues that we will certainly be considering during the Committee stage. One of our concerns is that the power of general competence given to councils under the Local Government Act 2002 will give them the opportunity to foist on ratepayers a commitment that they would not otherwise have entered into. That is why we opposed that particular provision when we debated that legislation a couple of years ago. 
Once it is passed this bill will allow the council to commit the ratepayers of a particular area to carrying the risk of involvement in the energy sector and the huge compliance costs associated with that. Who will pay at the end of the day if something goes wrong? It will be those who are on fixed incomes. It will be the superannuitants who do not have the means to generate any other income and it will be the people who are on benefits. They are the ones who will carry the can for a piece of legislation brought in because the Wellington Regional Council wants to move into energy—which along with roading is one of the main infrastructural challenges facing New Zealand. 
The concept of this bill is fine. We understand that we have an issue and a challenge with energy. In our view though we must realise that the costs that will be imposed by the regional council are too risky. This is part of risk management and during the Committee stage we will certainly be looking closely to see whether the risks are justified by the merits. If we look at what wind farms actually do we see that they are not as successful as one might expect. The big towers sitting in the wind zones are a blight on the landscape. They can operate only when the wind blows between 5 and 25 kilometres an hour. Over that they do not work; they have to be shut down. 
The cost of maintaining these machines—or whatever we should call them—is absolutely horrendous. I was in Australia in November looking at coal production in Newcastle and throughout the Hunter Valley where there is a wind operation. The costs of generating power from wind farms there make it so inefficient that it is hardly worth the effort. 
The other point I want to make is that wind farms operate on only 40 percent efficiency. A tower produces 1 megawatt of power. That is not very much considering that the Huntly power station puts out about 1000 megawatts. We would need a lot of those structures on the landscape to produce the sort of power that one would expect. In fact in the United States they are actually closing wind farms down because they have found that wind farms are not as efficient as they should be. One could say— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The Greens were wrong. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Greens were wrong yes. We have plenty of wind but we need to look at the restrictions that are placed on wind farms and we need to look at how to get the efficiencies out of them that one would expect. In Denmark one sees wind farms in the sea. That is where they are positioned—off the land in the sea. They have been there for some time but even today their maintenance costs are absolutely horrendous. 
We know that energy is an important challenge facing New Zealand and certainly steps are being taken by some of the generators to address that challenge. In my area the Genesis power station at Huntly is looking to expand its operation moving away from gas and further into coal. In Taupo a private company is moving further into geothermal power. It was in the news over the Christmas break that there has been private investment in geothermal power. But when it comes to what we are looking at here—a council being involved in a commercial operation—I ask whether that is its core function. I do not believe that it is. I do not believe that a council should be involved in a commercial operation but the powers of general competency under the Local Government Act 2002 actually allow that to happen. 
So one of our concerns is the risk that will be foisted on the ratepayers of the Wellington region. We will be looking very closely during the Committee stage at whether this risk is worthwhile whether there is a net benefit and the cost-benefit ratio for a council involved in the energy sector. At this stage we certainly have our doubts. 
 Looking at the commentary I note that at the bottom of page 3 it is stated that the Local Government and Environment Committee urges the council “to review the land administered under the Act to assess its appropriate legal status; the need for legal protection” of certain values. But one of the things that it does not mention is the impact on land values. In my earlier days as a valuer one of the areas we looked at were the issues that affected land values. Throughout the Waikato we will see with Transpower’s proposal to put 70-metre pylons right through the Waikato region to Auckland that the impact on land values will be absolutely horrendous. Already there is much concern expressed by landowners—be they farmers or lifestyle people—that the effect on values in that area will be considerable. 
One of the factors that is not mentioned in this bill specifically although it includes landscape and recreational values is the impact of these towers from wind farms on land values. These are issues that during the Committee stage National will be exploring as we look to see where there is a net benefit in this proposal. But we will be supporting the bill through to the Committee stage.