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:17755. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It is quite extraordinary that in the Aquaculture Reform Bill—in which we are attempting anyway to resolve the issue once and for all—lo and behold we see Part 6 is totally and specially dedicated towards conflict resolution. One entire part is about conflict resolution when this is a reform bill in which the whole issue is meant to be sorted in a full fair and final way. It is quite extraordinary that the Government itself and the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope who is sitting there and chewing his cud do not seem to understand that they have just opened up another period for Maori to fight one another to argue and to make the lawyers rich. I can see Donna Hall right now just beaming from ear to ear at the thought of the millions of dollars she will be gleaning from Part 6 because of the total ineptitude of the Government. I can tell the Committee right now that the lawyers will be getting the snapper and the ordinary Maori will be getting the empty net as always in these sorts of settlements. 
This legislation will not achieve anything that is near to the nice warm fuzzy belief that the Greens New Zealand First United Future and the Government seem to have about what will occur once it is passed. It is a recipe for the continuance of the grievance industry. It will pit Maori against Maori iwi against iwi and even I guess relative against relative in the argument as to who is entitled to what. I can only say again that it is extraordinary to see in a bill of this size an entire part—not a clause or a couple of clauses—dedicated towards trying to resolve conflict or setting in train the principles by which conflict resolution can occur. It is amazing that the Government has predetermined that there will be conflict and in trying to pre-empt it has put in a whole new part. I guess I am still thinking to myself that there can be only a clause or two on that surely. But no an entire part consisting of a dozen pages or so is dedicated towards the resolution of the conflict that must occur as a result of this legislation. I find that to be absolutely amazing. I can only concur with my colleagues from the National Party on that. 
Tipene O’Regan was dead right. The Minister should know that he was dead right. If the Minister was doing his job properly he would get on the phone to him. When I was last aware Tipene O’Regan was still living in Otago so it would not even cost the Minister a toll call to get on the phone and ask him what actually happened and what his recall of the process was. We would not even need Part 6 if the opinion of one of the most highly regarded members of Maoridom and of the New Zealand community had been sought by the Government. If the Government had consulted Tipene O’Regan at an early stage I suspect the whole conflict resolution process would have been unnecessary. We would not be sitting here in urgency trying yet again to ram another piece of legislation through Parliament that is in my view totally unprincipled and not even based on consultation with Maori to determine whether it is necessary.