Energy Strategy—Electricity

How can anybody take this Government seriously over climate change and renewable energy when the Minister’s department has been sitting on the application by Bay of Plenty Electricity for a concession over just 0.7 of a hectare—or 1 percent—of the Kaituna reserve, for over 2 years and 3 months, when that hydro station would save 33,000 tonnes of carbon emissions each year and renewably power 10,000 households, and when that scheme still has to be subject to a full resource consent process even if his department grants the concession?

The project that the member refers to is a complex project. It lies right next to land that is under reserve status and, just as with regard to the Arnold River, by moving through it properly, by negotiation, and by getting outcomes that everyone is happy with, we end up with a successful project. I am hopeful that we can do that in Kaituna, as well.

What did the Minister mean when he told Parliament on 5 December last year that “a decision on the Kaituna project is very imminent.”, noting that 10 months have since passed and Bay of Plenty Electricity still does not have a decision?

I guess I am a sort of optimistic guy.

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. How can the answer that he is an optimistic guy address the question of why the Minister told the House that a decision was very imminent at the beginning of December last year when 10 months later we do not have a decision? This process of questioning is about departmental accountability, and I think the Minister does need to be accountable for that sort of bureaucratic bungle by his department.

I do not know whether the Minister wishes to add anything further to his answer?

Pettis Jill Pettis Link to this

Perhaps my answer was a little flippant, but I hope that in my first answer I touched on the fact that this is actually a much more complicated case than it first appeared to be. Because of the proximity of land under reserve status, we are trying to accommodate the proposal and the reserve-status land. I can operate only within the law.

How is the Department of Conservation contributing to a sustainable future for New Zealand?

The conservation estate already makes a major contribution to New Zealand’s economic, environmental, and social infrastructure. Our natural environment underpins Brand New Zealand, driving our $18.6 billion tourism industry. Natural ecosystems provide the essential services that sustain life—for example, the tussock lands of Te Papanui Conservation Park. Conservation parks supply water for hydro generation, irrigation for farming, and drinking water for Dunedin. I see a member over there who thinks that it is funny; it is not funny to the people of Dunedin. If National wants to campaign on destroying the conservation estate, I say “Bring it on!”, because our Government is committed to protecting New Zealand’s unique landscapes and biodiversity.

What did the Minister mean when he told Parliament on 5 December last year: “I can say that some good news is very close on that project.”, when 10 months later the only news we have is a departmental report recommending that the concession application be rejected?

I have already explained to the House that this is a complex issue. The member who has just asked the question is all over the place on the issue of the environment. On the one hand he promises a rating system to protect New Zealand’s significant river systems—

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister wants to divert off the subject by talking about some other quote I said. The question is about him telling the House last December that there was good news on this project. I asked him what the good news is, when the only development has been the department producing a report that says it should be declined.

I would ask the Minister to address the question and not to include material that is not relevant to the question.

I was trying to point out that from that particular member we get all sorts of contradictions. I guess it proves the Cullen maxim that one does not need two National MPs for a contradiction; one will do.

Would the Minister please address the question.

As I have explained to the House already, this project, which at first seemed to be a rather simple one, is actually a very complex one because of the nature of the land tenure in that area. We are trying to resolve those issues.

How does the Minister justify his department taking 2 years and 3 months for a concession application involving just 0.7 hectares—or 1 percent—of one of the 8,400 reserves that are managed by his department, noting he has said publicly that addressing climate change is an urgent priority of his department?

Very easily. That member, as a former Minister of Conservation, knows that the Minister must operate within the law. I cannot arbitrarily say conservation land that has reserve status can be destroyed—it is not possible.

Is it not the truth of this issue that his bloated bureaucracy is out of control, that even small concessions take years and years to conclude, and that on top of that years and years are required for resource consent; and is that not why New Zealand’s proportion of renewable energy has declined in every year of this Labour Government and why this Government does not have a bolter’s hope of meeting the target of 90 percent renewables by 2025?

The ludicrous and exaggerated comments of the member destroy any credibility he has. I remind the member again that as a former Minister of Conservation he knows that the Minister must operate within the law.

I seek leave to table the statement by the Minister in December last year that the decision was “very imminent”.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek leave to table the Department of Conservation’s report recommending that this concession not be granted.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek the leave of the House to table a document on the value of conservation to the New Zealand economy.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table a statement from Fish and Game New Zealand praising the Government’s Energy Strategy.

Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

I seek the leave of the House to table a document outlining the major climate change initiatives that are being developed on conservation land.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I seek leave to table the Department of Conservation’s statement of intent, which states—