Aquaculture Reform Bill

The Primary Production Committee examined Part 4, regarding the Biosecurity Act, and the effects that this reform legislation would have—and rightly so—on that particular Act. Part 4 is another part that will be divided into one of the seven separate pieces of legislation arising from this bill, and deals solely and specifically with those clauses making amendment to that Act, which was passed in 1993 under the then National Government. We see biosecurity in this industry as absolutely essential. Just as biosecurity is important in the commercial-fishing industry, it is important in aquaculture. We see it as no less important for land-based aquaculture than it is for sea-based aquaculture.

In fact, it is interesting to discuss the regulations relating to land-based aquaculture, because submitters came to us to ask why they were facing regulations and legislation that compounded the compliance costs placed upon them. They said there was absolutely no need for it, so we asked the officials why it was so. People with aquaculture farms on land that were fenced off, that were not on property that one could call public space—like the ocean—but were on private property, asked why they faced so many regulations.

Officials came back at us with two succinct arguments. One was the need for regulations to ensure that the policing of fisheries could be adequately carried out. By way of an example, an on-land aquaculture farm might produce pāua. If a land-based aquaculturist were found with pāua, he would need to have followed certain regulations to be able to prove that his pāua were grown on his farm for sale. He would need records of the profit of his business—records of the seeding coming into the business, the enhancement in the business, and the on-selling of pāua on to the market. That is fair enough; it is around the whole compliance and policing area. That is one reason why those farmers have to be subject to regulations, and we accepted that.

The other reason was with regard to biosecurity issues and the need for a degree of traceability. If there was a biosecurity scare, whether because of threats within New Zealand, amongst our own marine farms, or because of a biosecurity scare offshore, in our markets and relating to our particular produce, then it would be a very serious matter for the marine-farming industry, indeed. That is why we took quite seriously these particular clauses with regard to biosecurity, and we do so now.

Clause 57 amends section 43 of the Biosecurity Act in relation to risk goods. That is to ensure that information can be required on the full range of fish-farming activities, in the event of a need to trace fish movements. So it is all about traceability. One can appreciate that smaller stock used for spawning can come on to a farm, and can then be on-grown—transferred to another part of the farm, or to another farm owned by the same proprietor, or indeed, to another farm owned by a separate proprietor. It can then be on-sold to a licensed fish receiver, or directly into the market, as in the case with exporting. If a biosecurity fault is found in that overseas market, that product would need to be traced back through the licensed fish receiver, or the marketing arm, to the farm where it was on-grown, then back to where it was originally brought on as young stock. That is why the amendments to the Biosecurity Act are so important, and we acknowledge them.