Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17733] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to this rather significant Part 3 which relates to the Conservation Act. An interesting question has been raised by Gerrard Eckhoff. Clearly the nod from the Minister signified that sea-run trout is defined as freshwater fish so it cannot be farmed in the sea. That raises concerns around how far the Government wants to go with this issue. 
We read in clause 55(2) about the “taking holding possession sale or disposal of freshwater fish under the authority of—” the Fisheries Act or the Marine Farming Act or “the registration of a fish farmer …”. The reference to “fish farmer” reminds me of the previous provision that looked at the giving of authority. First of all the fish farmer has to go to the Ministry of Fisheries for that authority but either a resource consent or a certificate of compliance is required before that farmer can continue. But one does not have to have either of those things to be a fish farmer if one has a customary rights order. One does not have to have a certificate of compliance or a resource consent if one has a customary rights order. I would have thought that was a double standard. Given that largely it will be Maori who are customary rights holders compared with anybody else I definitely see that as a double standard and as the creating of an advantage for one group of persons over others who are required to go through the resource consent or compliance certificate process to be registered farmers as identified under Part 3. So we keep going back to the registration of fish farmers under Part 3. I am just reiterating the parameters by which fish farmers are established. I think it is absolutely amazing that we do have that double standard and that someone with a customary rights order can become a fish farmer without having a certificate of compliance or resource consent. 
Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call to clarify the situation in regard to that and whether it is actually appropriate. He is obviously declining to comment on that one. I think it is a significant issue and if I had had time when debating the previous part I would have gone into it more fully. 
I just bring members back to the registration of fish farmers as identified in Part 3 and ask people to think about the preference in law that is being provided here for customary rights holders who will be predominantly Maori—I cannot think of any instance that the case might be otherwise. They do not need a resource consent or a compliance certificate if they have a customary rights order. In my view that is absolutely atrocious. The same parameters should apply to all regardless of the customary rights order situation. Of course that is another little gift arising from the Foreshore and Seabed Act and I am sure we will be confronted with more of these little gifts which are absolutely atrocious. That is something we are appalled to see and we will be seeing it throughout the legislation. 
I will leave the Minister to respond and perhaps to address some of the concerns I have raised in regard to the preference being provided for customary rights holders over registered fish farmers.