Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10621] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I will take a moment to reflect on the previous bill that we have just passed in this House. It is one of the extraordinary ironies of this Parliament that here we are trying to get a moratorium through on an industry that is potentially worth $4 billion to this country. That is one of the estimates that have been made by the industry. Here we are trying to slow that down or almost stop it. On the other hand we are fast tracking Project Aqua which will probably have one of the most deleterious impacts on one of the great rivers in this country. Perhaps I am a little off track on this particular subject but it just strikes me as something of an extraordinary irony. The aquaculture industry accounts for 15 percent of New Zealand’s seafood exports at this time and is growing very very rapidly. But perhaps I should correct myself; it used to grow very very rapidly until the Government stepped in and said: “We can’t keep pace with this industry. We’re going to place a moratorium but don’t worry about it. It will be for only a short period of time.” We are now back in the House extending that moratorium for another 12 months. I suspect that in 12 months’ time towards the end of 2004 we will be back again extending that moratorium. 
For a moment or two it is also worth reflecting on the fact that there are some problems associated with this industry not the least of which of course is that it is controlled by three Acts—the Resource Management Act the Fisheries Act and the Marine Farming Act. There is a real need for this legislation to be either modified or placed under one overall controlling body to ensure that this industry has real growth and the potential can be realised. But to stop this industry for another 12 months is absolutely outrageous. This basically is saying to an industry that is chomping at the bit to get going: “Wait because we officials have not put in place this wonderful overall overarching plan that we feel is so essential to ensure continuity and growth in the industry.” 
It strikes me as being quite perverse. No other major industry is held in abeyance while the Government tries to catch up with what is happening. The House could reflect on what could have happened when the settlers or indeed Maori came to this country and the Government of that time said: “Let’s stop everything and develop a plan for agriculture in this country.” It would have been totally dumb to do that but that is in fact the effect of what this Government is doing to this country at this time. I repeat: a $4 billion industry—an industry we desperately need—is being put aside while the Government and its officials desperately try to catch up on the problems that are real or perceived. 
This is not a new industry and this is what I find quite extraordinary. We have had 25 years of experience in aquaculture from the very first salmon farm in Takaka in the Nelson region. This is not a new concept and a new technology and once it was applied to the ocean then new technologies came away and it was progressing very very favourably. Technology advances at a huge rate and essentially does not wait for Governments to catch up. 
One of the great problems is the lack of experience within the Labour Government to actually understand how industry works. The Government should not place this vital industry into a vacuum for another 12 months. Basically the Government has said: “We’re suspending this industry. Wait until we decide what to do.” It is quite simple. I would have thought one of the most important things the Government could do is to say: “Let’s look at an area—say for example off the Otago coast.” There has been a coastal plan in place for many many years—I think up to about 4 years now—and the Government could have said to Otago: “Let’s proceed just in your region as a model for what could happen or indeed what should happen and if mistakes are made we can rectify them in every other area. But a working model is needed to show what can happen or what should happen in other areas.” 
The pleas of the Otago Regional Council were ignored when it virtually pleaded with the Government: “Let us proceed with certain cautions of course and have this working model that we can work out terribly well and see how this impacts on the rest of New Zealand.” That seems to me to be an extraordinarily sensible thing to have done—or it should have been done but of course it has not been done. Why is that? It is basically of the Government’s own making. The Government has said: “We want to develop an oceans policy because our old friends in the Department of Conservation decided that what they want in the oceans is more important than what industry wants.” 
The Government has to decide what areas will be set aside for conservation purposes what areas could be set aside for just ordinary recreational opportunities and what areas should be set aside for Maori. Surely therein lies the nub of the problem. If the Government said: “We’re treating everybody in this country exactly the same.” it would not have a Maori problem. There would be no foreshore and seabed claim. That would have just totally gone off the radar screen. All the Government had to do was to work out where the areas are for these marine reserves where it could put aside areas for recreation and the balance for example could be left entirely for the industry to decide whether in fact the technology is sufficiently advanced to place marine farms even 10 kilometres off the coast. 
That could have been done and should have been done but it is because we put these impediments in front of ourselves as a nation that we now find this industry being held in abeyance yet again. It is absolutely unnecessary to have done so. For example we hear that there are criticisms of what is perceived as some sort of gold-rush mentality. Where is the problem? If people wished to develop an area of 20000 acres or 15000 hectares for example after a period of time and they do not use this area it is quite simple for the Government to say: “Unless this is up and working within this period of time the licence will lapse and it will go to the next tenderer so he or she can put capital into this area.” and away we go again. 
There certainly is some element of gold rush in it. Everybody who is interested in this particular industry is having a crack knowing there is a huge resource out there from which some dollars can be made. But most important we can actually employ another 10000 or 15000 people in this industry if we develop it the way it should be developed. It must be developed along the lines of ensuring that the security of investment is 100 percent. It is absolutely essential to ensure continuity of this industry so that it can fulfil the destiny that the fishing industry really does have. 
The demand for seafood is exponential and New Zealand is beautifully placed to meet a huge portion of that demand but one of the great fears I have is that the technology and knowledge will be lost overseas during this moratorium.