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:17724] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 As we are aware to make aquaculture a realistic occupation and business we had to make changes. There was a need for changes to the Fisheries Act 1996 and Part 2 relates to that. I want to just touch on two or three things. This whole part in the way it has ended up is very workable and worthwhile and I think the industry will be a lot stronger for it. 
One of the things that came across very early related to section 186E “Chief executive to make aquaculture decision” in clause 41. Originally that provision stated that the chief executive had to make aquaculture decisions “as promptly as was reasonable in the circumstances”. The select committee saw fit to put a deadline on that rather than to allow him just to go on and on. The submitters told us many many times about a sort of death by no answer and they did not want that again. So we put in “Within 6 months”. I thought that was a good threshold of time within which everybody could put in requests. It would allow time for everybody to examine and put some legs to this legislation with particular reference to the fisheries part of it. 
The second thing I make reference to relates to the undue adverse effect on fishing. A number of speakers have made reference to that. It really is the hub of certainty for commercial fishers who have been alluded to and talked about but I recall that the chief executive has to ensure that customary fishers as well as recreational fishers are satisfied. The undue adverse effect test is put in so that everyone can ensure he or she is covered and is not neglected in the negotiations or the inquiry to have an aquaculture management area. My friends the recreational fishers are very very happy that there is room for them to state their case and have the chief executive stand by and apply that test to the entire process of establishing an aquaculture management area. 
We think that with regard to the undue adverse effect test if the elements illustrated in new section 186G(a) to (f) inserted by clause 41 are not picked up by the regional councils and the chief executive then they are failing in their duty. By the councils and the chief executive applying those things as their duty the aquaculture farming industry should go ahead without as much default as in the past. So this is good legislation. 
The last provision I make reference to is section 186ZD “Fishers whose consent is necessary for aquaculture agreement” which relates to the owners of commercial fish quota. That has been spoken about before. When the bill came to us initially the proposals were fairly weak and draconian and possibly left a no-win situation for everybody. The present bill gives a clear 90 percent quota arrangement. If people cannot meet that then the 10 percent can be bought out as in a stock exchange parallel. But there is a process beyond that; if people wish to appeal they can. I think the High Court process that has been put in place strengthens this Fisheries Act and makes the position certain for everybody within the industry. 
So I am glad that Part 2 has been modified and strengthened from the provisions we first saw. I think we have taken account of the views of virtually all of those who objected by way of submissions.