Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15118] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I hope it comes as no surprise to members of this House when I say that the ACT party will not be supporting this bill. I believe that people listening to Parliament will recognise that the Aquaculture Reform Bill is hugely important to New Zealand. But it comes down to the fact that this bill is more valuable to one section of our community as it is all about delivering to Maori. It is all about the cargo cult that has developed in this country under this Labour Government. It is a cult that says to one important section of our society that those people are more privileged than anybody else. It says: “We will constantly deliver to you those things that we will not deliver to the other 80 percent of the population of this country but we will continue with this largesse and deliver whatever you want.” 
That really was the reason the moratorium was imposed. We have had all sorts of red herrings from the Green Party which said that the regional councils could not cope. I have plenty of documents to show that my regional council in Otago for example was almost begging the Government to let aquaculture go ahead. It had the coastal plans in place it was right up with the game and it has waited year after year for this to occur. It had to wait for the Government to do its negotiations and get this—and I have to call it this—racism in the form of this bill prepared. It is a bill that we will oppose because we oppose privilege. The ACT party opposes privilege to one or another section of our society. We oppose racism. 
Jill Pettis 
: The member’s nose is growing. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It is quite interesting that the “member for Billingsgate” is speaking on this fisheries matter. It is quite appropriate for the fishwife. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a personal reflection. The member will please carry on. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: We oppose tribalism in the 21st century. Tribalism has devolved nothing to any community anywhere in the world yet this bill perpetuates the myth of tribalism. That will not benefit Maori one iota. I challenge the Minister of Fisheries to stand in this House and tell me how a street kid in Mangere will benefit from this bill. He or she will not benefit in any way. If it did benefit any of those children who are living on the streets—and sadly too many of them are Maori—I would probably say that it is not a bad idea. But it will not. The Maori elite will benefit from this bill not the street kids. 
We will oppose this bill on a constant basis because that Minister David Benson-Pope who has been in the job for long enough now has put forward to this House bills that can only be described as dogs’ breakfasts. We have had a 16-page Supplementary Order Paper on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) because that Minister and his ministry get it so wrong. He does not know his job and that is a great shame. I would predict confidently that the Primary Production Committee will do exactly the same with this Aquaculture Reform Bill as it did with the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) because this bill will not deliver to those people who want to get involved in this very vital vibrant and progressive industry. 
I have heard figures quoted of up to $6 billion potentially in terms of wealth generation for this country from aquaculture. I am sure that the majority of people—excepting the Greens who would turn the whole of our coastal waters into some sort of glorified marine reserve if they could possibly get their way—want to see this industry thrive. There is little doubt that the feral fishery throughout the world is in decline. The real future lies in aquaculture. That means ascribing guaranteed property rights to those who are engaged in this industry because of the need for very substantial sums of capital to be tied up in this. The concept of having secure rights to these coastal waters is absolutely vital. 
But there is another aspect that causes me huge angst—and I am sure the members of the select committee feel the same way—and that is the involvement of the Department of Conservation in this bill. It appears from my reading of it that the new section 165O enables the Minister of Conservation to override a regional authority. It states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister direct a regional council—(a) not to proceed with a proposed allocation of space in a coastal marine area; or (b) in proceeding with a proposed allocation of space in a coastal marine area to give effect to the matters specified in the Order in Council.” That effectively gives the Minister of Conservation the power of veto. This House and I am sure the public knows full well that the Department of Conservation—driven by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—wants to have up to 20 percent of our coastal waters set aside as marine reserves. So when marine farmers want to get involved they will face the same problems that those of us who are involved in land-based activities face on a constant basis—appeal after appeal after appeal by the Department of Conservation. That is why it is absolutely vital that the Department of Conservation and its advocacy role especially is removed from the statute book. Its job is the management of its resource on behalf of the public; it is not to fight marine farmers or members of the farming community on land on a constant basis and in using up vast resources of public money to fight the wealth creators of this country. 
Phil Heatley 
: To fill the coffers of the Green Party. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: That is right. The regional councils as I said some time ago—what was it; 3 years ago?—said that they wanted to get on with the job. They had identified their aquaculture marine areas in which they wanted to get this industry up and running. So the opportunity cost to that industry—and to the country—is huge because as I said earlier this Government wants to pander yet again to Maori. 
There was an excellent article in the 
 Independent 
—I think in Wednesday’s edition. Tim Donoghue wrote an excellent article about how “Maori strike gold in marine farms”. Members will note that it is not about everybody striking gold or about everybody being involved in that gold rush. The strike is specific and that cargo cult as I mentioned earlier will be perpetuated yet again. That is of huge concern I am sure to many many Maori as well not just to those of us who do not agree with the concept of special privilege based on race. 
But I am also totally concerned about another issue and I will read from Mr Donoghue’s article: “Already there is a rift in Maoridom between local hapu on the one side and the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission (TOKM) on the other about the allocation of future aquaculture marine areas …”. What will we see into the future? Will there be 20 years as we have had on the allocation of fish stocks by the Maori Fisheries Commission? I cannot see that this bill will assist Maori even when they get that 20 percent. The arguments will go on and on. It would have been far better to allocate areas. 
For example down in my neck of the woods there are well-established Maori communities—say at Moeraki at Karitane and Waikouaiti. Those are areas few would dispute where Maori have natural assimilation or affiliation to the land and they are perfectly entitled to those areas. But what we have in this bill is something of another natural disaster from an incompetent Minister.