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:17713] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a call with regard to new section 165U “Tender money”. There has been a lot of nonsense spoken about this particular issue—about the fact that this is public space and therefore we should give regional councils and the Government the right to charge whatever they like. Let us just think for a moment or two about some other industries in this country that use a public resource. What about the use of fresh water by Meridian Energy Genesis Power and Mighty River Power? Those companies use a public resource. Do they tender for the use of that water? I do not think so. So why do we not apply a consistent standard right across the board and say that everybody who uses a public resource should tender for it? Well that does not happen. For example all the natural gas and oil reserves are public property and resources so why in many cases do the oil and gas companies not have to tender to drag those particular valuable commodities out of the ocean floor? What is the difference between those companies and somebody who in many cases puts up vast amounts of capital goes through an extraordinarily elongated process to get a resource consent possibly even has to compete with the Department of Conservation in tendering for a particular space and then finds that he or she is being whacked with a huge rental for the use of that space? 
The Government is totally ignoring the fact that there is unemployment and that there is a very valuable use of that capital by an export industry. The aquaculture industry is potentially a multibillion-dollar industry yet the Government and regional councils are saying that they will charge for the use of that public resource. Well OK if the Government and regional councils are to do that then they should do it right across the board and apply it to Solid Energy as well. Solid Energy takes vast amounts of coal which is a public resource out of the ground so why do we not get it to tender for its use of coal which is our resource? This measure is an inconsistency and it is an example of how poorly the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope has thought through some of the fundamental issues. The tendering process does allow for the best use. If we did have to tender for all public resources then we would end up with the highest use possible and that is not a bad system. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to the use of the public resource we call “fish”. We have a quota management system that is absolutely brilliant in comparison with anything else that we could have in terms of allocating that public resource but we can imagine what would happen if somebody with quota had to re-tender every few years for it. We would probably find that the Department of Conservation with its $300 million or $400 million allocation—as it probably will be next year—could outbid everybody and leave everything alone while we just try to eke out a living back on the land if we are still allowed to do that under that department as well. 
So I really cannot see why we have a tendering system whereby a marine farmer’s application has to go through a very very elongated process—a process that will cost the farmer tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars—only for the farmer to be then faced with having to re-tender for space when it becomes available after the 20-year process. There will be regional councils that could be potentially controlled totally by the Green Party by that time. My God! We have only to quickly visualise that scenario to recognise what an appalling situation it would be. Where in this bill does it state that a regional council must accept the highest tender? As often as not when something is tendered there is a statement: “The highest or any tender not necessarily accepted.” So now there is another process whereby a regional council could veto an application.