Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11667] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to take a relatively short call on this particular clause the title clause. Perhaps I could ask in a rhetorical way: “What’s in a name?”. Is the title actually important? Well I think it is very important because people listening to the debate who have just tuned in want to understand from the title of this bill exactly what the bill encompasses. From the title “Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Act 2003” it is reasonable to assume that the extension will go from March to December but the title does not actually and accurately reflect the reality of this bill. It does not reflect the fact that the Department of Conservation has had a huge influence over this bill and is seeking before anything goes ahead in terms of aquaculture 10 percent of our waters. That is a huge part and I do not see it reflected anywhere in the title. 
The title does not reflect the absolute frustration that is felt. Many speakers in this Chamber have alluded to that already in the debate this afternoon. They have talked constantly about the opportunity cost to the industry as well as to the country not just in dollar terms but in jobs and opportunity that seem to be going begging. I know of one employee of this establishment who is investing in Australia because that person knows as do most of those who either listen to or are interested in this debate that the moratorium will go well past 31 December this year. That is a racecourse certainty in my view. 
We have heard—and it is certainly not reflected in the title—the frustration of Maori over this extension. This industry is very much part of the Maori way of being their lifestyle. The foreshore and seabed are hugely important to them yet we have not heard from the Maori caucus on this issue. Those members have not spoken on whether they feel this bill is good or indifferent. I think of  
Once Were Warriors 
 the musical that has just been put on around the country; I think of the Maori caucus in that light. Those members are here as the voice of Maoridom in this House yet they have not spoken on this hugely important issue for their people. I suspect that many Maori will see their representatives in this House in that light—in the context that perhaps they once were warriors but are no more because they are not standing up for the issues. They are not standing up and speaking on this bill or even on the title of this bill—a bill that is so important to Maoridom. 
The reality is that—and I think Mr Phil Heatley is absolutely correct—the title does not reflect the truth of the matter. We should be calling the bill something like the “Foreshore and Seabed Problem Bill”. That is the truth of the matter. That is why this extension is being carried forward after assurances from the previous Minister of Fisheries when the moratorium was first put on for a couple of years that it would be lifted sometime in March—I do not have the exact date. Now we have an extension right through until Christmas. 
There is nothing in the title that reflects the truth of this matter. We stand and debate this question—those of us from this side of the Chamber do anyway—and we wait in vain for the Minister to take a call and explain his particular point of view or the Government’s point of view. It does not happen. One of the frustrations of the democratic process is when members on one side of the Chamber speak and expect the Minister at least to represent his Government’s point of view but it does not happen. So many times when we stand and speak we end up with that result.