Eckhoff Gerrard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9612] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I too would like to take call—a relatively short call in deference to the forlorn looks of my colleagues. I would be happy to debate this issue till midnight but I can see a few distressed-looking faces around the Chamber so I will get on with it. 
In looking through the debate on the Committee stage of this bill I note that one of the concerns I have is this word “authority”. The word itself conjures up all sorts of images that take me back to my school days. In respect of the question of why we should have an authority we have been there and touched on that. But I have learnt during my 30-odd years in farming and in my time in politics that it is not so much the make-up of a system that is important as the quality of the people within that system—the authority itself the handful of people who make up that authority. I am perfectly sure that at this time we have excellent people on the Horticulture Export Authority. I am sure they are very sensible decent honourable people. 
But what happens if there is a change? What happens if some individuals are appointed to this authority who turn out to be absolute disasters? I cannot see anywhere in the legislation a provision that will allow for the removal of those people. There is no allowance for a petition or whatever by Kiwifruit Growers for example if it is unhappy with the performance of one or two members of the authority and wants rid of them. I emphasise again that it is the individuals who make the difference. Whether they be in a political party or on an authority or on a regional council does not really matter. It is not so much the system; it is the individuals who make the huge difference. 
 I am delighted to see that the sensible people on the select committee—myself included of course—ensured that there was an appeal provision. That is hugely important because an individual who is not satisfied who does not believe that he or she has had a fair shake from the appeal authority can go to an arbiter. Many would say that is not appropriate either and is like one or two individuals making a choice for a family. I come back to Maori people who wish to export their own fruit: if the arbitrator and the authorities say no then that is it. Where do those people go? They go nowhere. There is a real problem there. 
I will touch on the views of Mr Woolerton—who I am sure is widely respected in the Woolerton family—who talked about the rights of the majority to impose on minorities. That the majority can always impose is a thing called democracy. The real question is not when or whether—not whether they can; of course we know that they can—but should they? Should we always allow minorities to have their say and do their thing? I think that in a society like New Zealand we do and should allow it. In this very House we used to have Labour and National—the old school the old parties—dominating politics in this country. People said that their time was nigh. People like to see minority points of view being expressed. I am most certainly in a minority here this evening—and it is a hugely honourable position to be in. The point is that Mr Woolerton who is a member of a minority party in Parliament says that the majority should always be able to impose its views on the minority. No it should not. The right of the individual is hugely important in our society and the views of individuals who get together in a small grouping should be respected. As long as they do not impose their views on others then that is entirely appropriate. I am opposed to the tyranny of the majority just as I am opposed to the tyranny of the minority.