Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17722] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I refer to paragraph (b) of clause 36A “Purpose” which states: “require all fish farmers to be registered under the Fisheries Act 1996;”. I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs: why? It is not a difficult question. Why do we not require all farmers on land for example to be registered? The principles of farming are pretty much the same in both contexts. Why do we not require everybody to be registered and have a huge Big Brother to keep an eye on things? Why do fish farmers need to be registered? Once they have been allocated space in an aquaculture management area why on earth should they then have to be registered under the Fisheries Act 1996? What useful purpose will that serve? Will it determine whether a fish farmer is a good a bad or a mediocre fish farmer? What are the sanctions— 
Simon Power 
: A sufficient fish farmer? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Exactly. What are the sanctions if someone is deemed to be a poor feeder of fish or a bad fish farmer? The mind starts to boggle. Will the Animal Welfare Act be invoked against fish farmers if they do not feed their fish adequately? What is the purpose of that measure? Why are we adding more bureaucratic structures to the industry when they are not needed? 
I can only assume that it is all part of a bureaucratic structure that ensures that everybody is registered and accounted for. We will have people poring over information to ensure that everyone is registered and up to date. That raises an interesting question: are fish farmers to be registered on a yearly basis or a 5-yearly basis? How often are they to be registered? And what happens if they let their registration lapse? What will occur then? What sanctions will there be against fish farmers if they are deemed to be unregistered? One finds the situation is quite extraordinary when one thinks about it. I ask those questions of the Minister in the chair the Hon Marian Hobbs who seems to be busy with her Christmas cards and is not overly interested in this debate. [ 
Interruption 
] I withdraw and apologise to the Minister. She is actually doing some writing. It is nice to know that that is keeping the Minister occupied. I am not really getting an answer on that matter. 
The other issue is that of fishers unduly affected by the proposed aquaculture agreements—the management areas—and of persons who wish to undertake aquaculture activities in their area. Let me inform the Committee of the comments made by the New Zealand Aquaculture Council which essentially said that the undue adverse effects test on fishing that is to be carried out by the Ministry of Fisheries uses a process that to marine farmers and fishers is not transparent. The council said that the process cannot be appealed on substance but only via judicial review and that there is also an option for an aquaculture agreement to be entered into with affected fishers although every quota holder and every fishing-permit holder in the area must agree. I understand that that has been altered somewhat and that there is now a provision for 90 percent acceptance which of course is perfectly reasonable. However I can foresee a time when even that change will not be sufficient. The New Zealand Aquaculture Council believes that the provision is unrealistic and unworkable. I cannot see an opportunity for even a 90 percent agreement to occur in many areas. So what will happen when we get a Mexican stand-off type of situation? As far as I can see there is no mechanism in the bill that will enable some movement to occur.