Ogilvy Bernie: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17696] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in the second reading of this bill to state that we will be voting for it and we would love to see it become law as soon as possible. There are very good reasons for us to do this which I hope to elaborate on in the second reading and if not then certainly in the Committee stage and the third reading. The reasons we are voting for this bill are very simple. As incredible as it seems the Primary Production Committee and officials after we had heard from all the submitters were able to turn the lemon that we had before us into a glass of lemonade. This bill is not 100 percent perfect but it is certainly 90 to 95 percent operational. In a world where getting it right seems to be problematic this is by and large an enabling bill to get this industry up and running again. 
The bill as it came to the select committee was a bit of a shocker and some submitters noted that very clearly. As I listened to some of the conclusions they made it was obvious there was really a great need for change to take place. The submitters had only 4 weeks to do what they could do whereas the drafters of the bill on their side probably had something like 4 years to do this. 
Out of all those submissions the objections raised have by and large been answered fully in this rewritten bill—those issues have been addressed and I want to take a bit of time to just go through some of those that caused concern. For instance submitters stated that aquaculture needed to be treated under the Resource Management Act like any other activity such as farming and not prohibited and not even put on a par with say nuclear waste. Now that has been accepted in this rewritten bill and I am very happy to support it because of this sort of change. 
The overwhelming number of submitters stated that many of the current problems in the bill were there because there had been a lack of listening by officials in the past and therefore the moratorium was put into place to try to steady the ship. There was a plea to the officials: “Please do not make the same mistake again.” That I believe has been accepted in this bill and makes us satisfied in that sense to vote for this second reading. 
We heard from an industry that had pioneered over some 20 years of work. It had very little hope that certainty would be available to it through the bill as originally proposed but now that has been provided through the rewriting of this bill. The problem with lack of continuity of tenure has been satisfied. Now every person has 20 years of tenure and the first right to continue to operate. In farming language that really means almost as if farmers can continue for ever and a day as long as they maintain the rules the regulations and the strictures that have been placed on aquaculture management areas by local councils. So as they keep farming they can be assured they will continue in the industry. That satisfied the submitters and we are very happy that that has been adjusted in this rewritten bill. 
The original bill was seen to set up possible fights between other marine players. For instance recreational and commercial fishers could have been fighting with farmers for years as they have done in the past. In some people’s minds it was therefore improbable that the undue adverse effects test would work especially on occasions when certain fishers would hold out on and renege against agreeing between themselves. Now this has been put aside. The bill now has a common-sense solution. It has used the 90 percent rule that applies with sharemarket takeovers and so this is now a very very excellent addition to the bill. 
We heard from submitters about the extraordinary time that had been taken in the past to get applications to the farming stage—we heard from some people that it took up to 9 years—and tremendous costs were incurred by farmers. We also heard in submissions that over $10 million was set aside in the Nelson-Marlborough area alone and that that had really crippled both the attitudes of people and their desire to go into further farming. They were once bitten twice shy I suppose. They were suspicious that this legislation would not give them freedom. The only people they could see making good on this were the lawyers. 
This bill now as it sits in its rewritten form I believe strips away that fear so those people can progress forward. So that is a very good addition to the whole bill. Certainty was needed not only for the farmer but for the lending institutions. Certainty has been put into this bill so that companies and investors can invest knowing what the rules are as it were. Labour can be satisfied. Exports can flourish. This bill in its rewritten form provides business certainty. 
Many submitters said that a public tendering process with no compensation for the intellectual property established could unjustly wipe the years of hard work from them as farmers overnight. It was their plea that the parties that had created the wealth should not have to tender for it. That injustice has now been resolved along common law principles in this particular rewritten bill. 
Some submitters said they feared that bigger companies were waiting to pounce to buy out the small ones that had no option but to sell if this legislation was passed unchanged through this House. They now have the power to raise their confidence they have certainty behind them incentives have been placed on local councils through this legislation to provide the aquaculture management areas and now their fears in that regard have been resolved. Private aquaculture management areas can now be established. The industry actually asked for that in submissions and has been heard in that process. 
United Future looks forward to this bill becoming law to help business in New Zealand. Our business friendliness is in sharp contrast to that which we have just heard from both the National and ACT parties today. Honestly how can those parties look aquaculture farmers in the eye and ask for their votes? Speakers from those parties in this House have put farmers down by being more ideological than in line with what the legislation actually offers which is now a fantastic business opportunity awaiting everybody. I was amused today with Dr Brash’s mathematics in his press release. If that is the way a Governor of the Reserve Bank does his sums then that would signal a rapid change of governors but I will deal more with that in the Committee stage as time is not with me at this point. I add and reiterate that United Future will be pleased to see this legislation move forward and become law.