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:17773. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 We come now to debate the title of the bill which of course we should all know by now is the Aquaculture Reform Bill. But what a misnomer that is. The aquaculture industry has not been around long enough. It has not been in the arena long enough to be reformed. This bill is in fact the “Aquaculture Restriction Bill 2004”. Goodness knows how long it will be before we come back to this House and ask ourselves why that industry is not performing. We will then start to look at the controls restrictions and cost structures that this legislation will impose on the industry. It is about restriction; it is not about reform. There is nothing really to reform the industry from. The aquaculture industry is a fledgling industry. It was trying to find its way in the world working things out—and I have heard members talk of individuals in the industry icons of the industry who were almost doing this thing by the seat of their pants working it out as they went. 
The industry is too young to reform. One cannot reform a fledgling industry. However the Government came along and said that it knew best. Regional councils and their planners knew best. They had never put a foot in the water never put a rope down never actually worked out how the green-lipped mussel or the oysters actually grew but they said they were hugely concerned about environmental considerations. 
When we look at the title and the purpose of the whole bill that is really what it comes down to. It is not about ensuring that the industry generates the sort of income that many in the industry have talked about which is billions upon billions of dollars. It is not unrealistic to suggest that potentially the industry could bring to this country between $8 billion and $10 billion given the massive coastline we have. But that will not happen because of the control and restrictions we are placing on this fledgling industry. 
I always find it ironic when I read a bill like this and there is the word “plan”— “We have a plan.” That comes up constantly. I throw this question open to the Committee: what happens if the plan is wrong? If we allowed people all over the country to determine what was appropriate for themselves they would work it out do the thing and would not be constrained or controlled by a plan. This is what I call the driftnet approach—that is one size or a huge driftnet that snares everything and that is what one must do because somebody in Wellington or somebody somewhere has said: “This is the plan this is the legislation and you will follow it.” Why not allow the regions to develop their own plans systems and controls if necessary. Why could we have not done that instead of having this top-down approach in the form of this so-called Aquaculture Reform Bill? 
It is a complete and utter misnomer to call it a reform bill. It has nothing to do with reform but this industry has everything to do with the future. There was enthusiasm amongst the men—and the odd woman was involved too—for the future of the industry. The select committee went around the country talking to members of the industry and some asked why the Minister had not come out to talk to them. Most of them were hugely enthusiastic about the future of the industry although there were huge concerns and the select committee has attempted to address them. But the concerns I have about the security of tenure and the role of the Department of Conservation with regard to the bill have essentially been ignored.