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:17692] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I suspect that the marine farming industry will breathe something of a sigh of relief that at long last the industry can start to proceed. But I also suspect that when they listen to this debate over the next few hours or however long it takes and recognise the huge problems that they will face in the future they will see this bill as something of a dual-edged sword. 
I note that the chairman of the New Zealand Aquaculture Council Callum McCallum wants to say a big thankyou to the Government its officials and everybody involved in this legislation. I cannot help but wonder how long he will be thanking the Government for because his press release states that he has the Minister’s “direct assurances” that the complexities of this 214-page bill will be applied by the Government in a practical supportive way that respects investment commitments to date. What on earth does that mean? It will not be the Government’s role once this bill is passed to do anything at all; it will be up to the regional councils to decide what will happen with the aquaculture industry in the future. I have not the slightest doubt that this 214-page bill will become an albatross around the neck of the industry. 
In this second reading debate I can perhaps do no worse than refer to the ACT minority report. This is the summation of the way my party feels about this bill. We recognise that this industry has the potential to be one of New Zealand’s greatest export earners given our massive coastlines and our creative innovative people within the industry. But this Government appears to have decided to restrict control and confine the industry in the name of goodness knows what. Timorous attitudes will get this industry nowhere. The ACT party believes that this reform bill will hinder the development of this important industry and prevent it from achieving its fullest potential. 
Security of tenure—Mr Woolerton has already spoken about this—has to be the biggest single issue I was faced with during my time on the Primary Production Committee. Regretfully I was not there for all the meetings but I constantly advocated that there should be a lease in perpetuity. The reason for that is very simple. I have seen what happens to short-term leases in industries based on land for example. If one gives a short-term lease one will get a short-term solution and one will get long-term problems from that form of tenure. Security of tenure is vital because this industry requires multimillions of dollars for investment both now and in the future. Nobody will invest in this industry—well nowhere near their potential—with the short-term approach the Government has taken. 
A submitter from I think Blenheim said that five people from the industry have already gone to Australia because they will not put up with what this bill dishes out to them. They said that in Australia there are about four pages of regulations and requirements. In New Zealand by comparison there are about 400 pages I suspect—it is huge—and the industry does not even know what the regional councils will dish up to it in the future. The industry has been given 20 years’ security by this bill. The 20-year period is nothing but a blink of an eye in terms of establishing oneself one’s industry one’s offshore infrastructure one’s business associations and one’s markets overseas. Twenty years is a meaningless period of time. In fact in many instances it takes generations to establish industries. 
That is why I and the ACT party unrepentantly advised that this industry should have a lease in perpetuity—a perpetual right of renewal subject to some predetermined environmental considerations. We do it for land. Why can we not do it for the ocean? We have to. I suspect that in the future there will be amendments that actually recognise this point as was the case many years ago when we had short-term pastoral leases. The farmers of those days said that if they were not going to get their leases back they would become an extractive industry. They could not care less. Then it all changed of course and became hugely sustainable once that clause was removed—once the industry had a lease in perpetuity. 
Mr Carter has already alluded to the issues surrounding the allocation to Maori. The 1992 Waitangi fisheries settlement was stated to be full and final. What is it about the words “full and final” that the Minister of Fisheries does not really understand? That is clear and absolute and there has been no presentation of fact or document to prove otherwise. The select committee did ask for that information to be presented. It was not presented. What was presented and what I received was advice from Crown Law on this issue. Now I thought that it would be a pretty fair way of determining the veracity or otherwise of the Minister’s claim that 20 percent of the space should go to Maori under the 1992 Treaty of Waitangi fisheries settlement. The advice we received from Crown Law consisted of three blank pages where its opinion was withheld. Why? What possible justification can the Minister or Crown Law have for withholding that perfectly valid information? It is totally and utterly inappropriate for an office of the Government—the Crown Law Office—to withhold valuable information if that information would have assisted our select committee in getting this bill right. That surely is the purpose of the bill. It is to establish at this early stage of the industry the ground rules so that the industry can progress in a sensible and reasoned fashion. But that will not happen for another very important reason and that is because of the powers that this bill gives to the Department of Conservation. 
The bill essentially gives the Department of Conservation the power of veto. Why I say it is so terribly important to remove the department out of this whole process is that it has already stated that its intended policy is to ensure that 10 percent of the coastline goes into marine parks. So along comes the fishing industry the mussel farmers or whoever it might be and the department will say: “Oh this looks like a nice spot for one of our marine reserves. Permission declined.” It will not be the Ministry of Fisheries that runs this industry; it will be the Department of Conservation. Its tentacles have stretched right throughout industry in this country and certainly throughout primary-based industry. I note John Tamihere is nodding in agreement with me and I am delighted to see that. I am sure that next year—if or when he is back—he will be reining in that department. However it is totally and utterly inappropriate to give a Government department like the Department of Conservation the power of veto. It has a power of advocacy which is also quite wrong and I can only lament that the future of this industry will be tied inevitably with the Department of Conservation.