Quinn Paul: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — Second Reading 
Quinn Paul: Ngati Tuwharetoa Raukawa and Te Arawa River Iwi Waikato River Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14402] 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I have the privilege as the last speaker to bring closure to the second reading debate of a bill that unsurprisingly I fully support. I thought that in closing I might perhaps respond to some of the comments made by the leader of the ACT Party in particular in respect of democracy and having the power removed from local authorities. He focused on the fact that this particular bill was undemocratic. In so doing he made the observation that unfortunately minorities have to accept that they miss out and that that is the way the cookie crumbles. 
Well I would like to share a bit of history with the leader of the ACT Party. I will take him back to 16 July 1787 and to what some might consider to be the guardian of world democracy—that is the United States of America. If the member studies his history book he will find that on that date the founding fathers of the United States of America signed an agreement to constitute the Senate as part of the Congress of the United States of America. The Senate document stipulates that there can be only two members from every state. The simple fact of the matter is that if that document had not been signed and executed then we would not have the United States as we know it today. In trying to create the United States the founding fathers could not get past the fact that unless there were some protections against the large states of New York Massachusetts and so on the smaller states were not prepared to cede their sovereignty—at which point in time they still held. So the compromise was that they created the United States Senate and that every state was entitled to two senators only. The protection it provides is that ultimately to get anything agreed and where in particular the smaller states disagree there has to be at least a two-thirds majority of 60 votes. So there is the example within what some people say is the greatest democracy in the world—that in fact minorities do not have to suck the kumara to use an expression. The reality is that this particular legislation ultimately recognises property rights from way back. 
In talking about local authorities and the fact that they may be hamstrung I will share with the House at a very high level—because I think it is appropriate—the contributions made to the Maori Affairs Committee process by those local authorities. As has been mentioned there were 18 submissions: approximately 50 percent were from iwi groups and 50 percent were from other constituted bodies. I will run quickly through a summary. The South Waikato District Council supports the bill. The Taupo District Council in its submission supported the bill. The Waikato Regional Council supports the purpose of the bill “to restore and protect the health and wellbeing of the Waikato River for present and future generations.” New Zealand Eel Ltd made a submission and agreed with the measures proposed in the bill. The Eel Enhancement Company Ltd supported the initiatives arising from the bill. Federated Farmers supported the measures as set out in the bill as did the Seafood Industry Council. 
The fact of the matter is that the interested parties that this bill directly affects all support the intention of this particular bill. They are the democratically elected representatives of the people and the populace whom our friend Mr Hide said he was speaking on behalf of. I say to him that he should read the submissions. They all support the bill. With those few words it gives me great pleasure to conclude the debate on the second reading of this wonderful bill.