Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17763. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on Part 7. This part of course provides for transitional matters relating to the ending of the moratorium under the Resource Management Act of 1991. It has taken 4 long years for this moratorium to be finally lifted in I think early January. For 4 years the potentially most exciting industry that this country has come up with in recent years has been held in abeyance held back champing at the bit to get on with it because of the procrastination of this Government and its inability to have a little vision owing to its concern about what might happen around the coast. Now we must therefore apply hugely stringent rules to the transitional matters relating to the end of this moratorium. 
It seems to me that if we really take a hard cold calculating look at what has happened around the coast in terms of the loss of our biodiversity the loss of our aquatic life we see that it is not the marine farmer it is not the aquaculture industry that has caused any problems for the district councils or regional councils. It is in fact more likely to be members of the public who have caused problems. It is those who strip the coast bare of shellfish with bits of piano wire. It is those who jump in their fizz-boats and go out for a bit of recreational boating—and why should they not? Often as not the boat goes from one area to another and transfers an unwanted organism from one area to another. Those problems have caused huge angst to this country. For example the ballasts of ships cause more harm to our biodiversity and our coastal waters than anything a marine farmer could throw up. Marine farming is essentially a static industry. It does not move from place to place. We have just had problems in some South Island rivers caused by apparently fishermen who unbenownst to them had transferred unwanted organisms on their fishing gear—on their rods their boots their clothing or whatever. So why do we not have transitional requirements that apply to those people? They have caused more problems than anything that the aquacultural industry could possibly come up with. 
I find it quite distressing when I look at the number of transitional requirements. An authoritarian attitude is being taken by the regional councils on a constant basis towards this fledgling industry. It has to survive it has to grow and yes it will make the odd mistake from time to time. For goodness’ sake there is no effort without error. If the Government thinks it can manage the risk of new organisms entering our systems and our coastal waters by regulation and control I tell it that it will not work. Certainly by educating people and by getting through to the recreational users we have a greater chance of ensuring that our coastal waters remain as good as they possibly can. 
The Minister and this bill must recognise that the problem is not the marine industry and it is not aquaculture; the problem comes more from those outside the industry as I said earlier especially from ships coming in and discharging ballasts. Has the Government applied regulation and controls around that aspect? Ships and pleasure boats coming in from the Islands for example may bring in unwanted organisms. Where is the control that the regional councils should be applying over those individuals or boating organisations rather than their applying control over the marine-farming industry? It seems to me that the marine-farming industry is being used as the whipping boy. We are adding huge compliance costs on to that industry which is struggling to survive under this Government.