Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17705] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I too would like to draw to the Committee’s attention the influence that the Department of Conservation will have over this aquaculture industry. When I look at the bill I see that it is titled the Aquaculture Reform Bill but under the Department of Conservation it will become the “Aquaculture Restriction Bill”. It is not a bill designed to ensure that aquaculture gets its fair share; it is designed to ensure that the Department of Conservation gets what it wants then everybody else can have what is left over. 
I am sure the Committee can see from the clauses in Part 1 that the hands of Kevin Smith from the Minister of Conservation’s office are all over the bill. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society has got its way again under this Minister’s advocacy. He has buckled to the Minister of Conservation and to the determination—driven I guess by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society—to ensure that 10 percent of our coastal space goes to reservations and marine reserves. That is the expressed policy of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. That is what Kevin Smith wants and under Chris Carter’s stewardship what Kevin Smith wants Kevin Smith gets. That is why this bill is so bad. 
I have no problem with reserves—none at all. The ACT party has no problem with reserves; indeed they are needed. We probably need quite a number of small reserves throughout this country. ACT is not opposed to conservation but if the Department of Conservation and the Minister had an ounce of integrity the Minister would have said to the Minister of Fisheries that the department had identified certain areas as being valuable and asked him please to ensure that they were well identified and that the public had a chance to comment on them before the bill went through. That would have been a fair and reasonable process. As it is we now have a situation whereby every time new applicants want to put an application in and go marine farming they will have to deal with the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society first. 
They will not deal with the Ministry of Fisheries or the regional councils in the first instance; they will have to consult with the Department of Conservation and give whatever concessions it wants. 
The real issue for me certainly is the advocacy role that the Department of Conservation has in this area. In some respects I cannot blame it because statute requires it to advocate for conservation. But it is surely the duty of the members of this Parliament to advocate for the industry—for the exporters who give us a living in this country. It is not the Department of Conservation or any other department that ensures the health and wealth of this country; it is the people who get out there and do the work. 
This bill through the Department of Conservation will make life for the producers of this country—the marine farmers—even more difficult. There are bureaucratic structures and a time lapse. I see in the bill that applicants have to give the Department of Conservation 4 months’ notice. Every application will time and time again drag out to the 4-month period. Any applicants in the aquaculture industry overseas would have their ropes in the ground and their buoys locked up or whatever they do. The industry would be up and running within 4 months. As it is in New Zealand the application will go in and nothing will happen for 4 months until the Department of Conservation has had a look around to see whether the seabed is suitable for its needs.