Section 3(2)(a) states "the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, issue a draft aquaculture licence to the licensee concerned". That refers to where a foreshore licence is deemed to be an aquaculture licence. Is this not a lawyer's charter? If the foreshore licence is deemed to be an aquaculture licence under subsection (1), why should anyone bother getting an official aquaculture licence? They can assume they have it. I know the Minister shall have to initiate the issuing of the formal aquaculture licence but there is no benefit from the point of view of the aquaculturalist in pursuing the matter any further. If the foreshore licence has been deemed to be an aquaculture licence, he effectively has an aquaculture licence. Is this area a bit confused? Given the pressures on Departments and Ministers, I could imagine nine out of ten aquaculture licences arising from foreshore licences will be left like that and not proceeded with any further. Is there concern about this?
Also, I am unclear whether there is a difference between a fish culture licence and an aquaculture licence and whether we should be worried about this. Both terms are used.