Foreshore bill 'threat to electricity'

By RUTH BERRY

Customary rights granted under the proposed foreshore legislation are a threat to the security of electricity supplies, says Transpower.

The national grid operator said protection that the legislation gave to customary rights orders could prevent it installing new lines and cables.

Transpower delivered the warning yesterday to the parliamentary select committee hearing the first round of submissions on the proposed legislation.

Most of those making submissions on the bill identified significant concerns with it, and many said it should be abandoned.

Telecom raised similar concerns to Transpower about the effect of the legislation on its network of cables.

Both believe the protection the legislation gives to customary rights could stonewall their development plans.

Transpower said it intended to develop its Cook Strait power cables, which were "essential to the reliable and efficient supply of electricity to the country".

It also plans to upgrade its Auckland transmission capacity and in the South Island.

As well as its submarine cables, a number of overhead transmission lines are in the coastal marine area, most notably in the Manukau and Waitemata Harbours and in the Tauranga Harbour.

In its submission, written by National Grid Group general manager David Laurie, it says the "bill appears to provide that where incompatibility arises, Transpower will be prevented from obtaining and exercising the rights it requires under the Resource Management Act to carry out its activities, thereby jeopardising the long-term and secure transmission of electricity around the country".

Transpower believed the bill should be changed to prevent customary rights orders being granted if they would adversely affect its existing activities.

When a recognised customary activity would be affected by a new line or cable, "then the recognised customary activity should not automatically prevail".

The Resource Management Act should be able to balance the competing interests and decisions, it said.

The question of whether customary rights-holders will be able to veto large developments was also debated in Parliament yesterday.

National deputy leader Gerry Brownlee asked whether such developments would be able to proceed only with the sanction of the customary rights-holder.

Attorney-General Margaret Wilson said local authorities, not rights-holders, made the final decision in such a case.

Act MP Ken Shirley said a clause in the bill required the written consent of a customary right-holder.

He asked Ms Wilson "what does she say to Transpower, which this morning at the select committee said that a bucket of sand could effectively hold up the Cook Strait cable or the replacement of it?"

Ms Wilson said local authorities would have to consider a range of criteria when considering resource consents as a result of the bill.

"Essentially, the local authority must decide whether this is a significant adverse disadvantage if the resource consent were applied to the holder of a customary right."

The bill says that if another party seeks a resource consent for an activity that would significantly impair a customary right, the application must be declined unless the right-holder gave approval.

National has said this will result in developers paying rights-holders for consents.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen did not deny this in Parliament this week.

"The so-called koha-for-consent process is certainly a result of the Resource Management Act passed under the previous National Government," he said.

"But similar payments are made to Pakeha; they are just not called koha in that case."