Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just wanted to go on to another point at this stage. One of the key themes the Minister has used in his answers tonight has been that there will be a positive impact not just a negative impact from the changes and Let's not forget that when we are making our calculations and we're looking at the legislation." That's true and we understand and accept that as well. But there is one bit which I feel is very difficult to understand and that is that—and this is the second point that the Minister has had as a theme and in his second reading speech it was very clear—there's a degree of trust between the Government and the primary sector. They've come to an agreement and he's very clear that that agreement is something that they and the primary sector feel they can meet and the Minister is very privileged and happy to have that agreement and sees it as a great combination—and I think anybody in New Zealand will see that as well.The question then is: if there is an agreement if there is that trust and if there is that positive impact from what can happen why then do we need a hammer over the industry in 2022 where the Minister can just say "They haven't done enough but I decide that I want more and I require that this happens in 2025."? How can there be really a trust in an agreement when the agreement can be overridden by one party at a later date without any negotiation without a sense of fair play? And for farmers that is the crucial thing: they have uncertainty in their business every day. The Minister has talked about the fluctuation in prices that are reliant on international prices and exchange rates—all that—and more uncertainty over the weather. You know droughts and all those things are all part of the uncertainty of farming. And here we add another uncertainty on where their industry groups go and do a deal with Government in the best interests of their farmers and in the best interests of New Zealand and yet the Minister isn't really going to trust them. The Minister is holding back something—holding back the ability to override that agreement whenever he feels they haven't met what they want from the Government's perspective.I want him to take that out of the bill because if he really believed what he's been telling us tonight—that there are positives that are going to come out of this legislation—if he really said and believed that that agreement is something that is standing and positive and shows the direction forward which we all want then why does he control in the end the ability to override it at his will at any point in his time? And as a Green Party that espouses the values of trust and negotiation and fairness and equity how can somebody have an agreement that can be overridden by one party at a later date without giving the people that will be affected that certainty around their business—that certainty around what they're doing for New Zealand at this point in time and what they're going to be asked to do in the next couple of years to save the budget of this country?So if the Minister took that out took that override provision out it wouldn't make any difference. We're looking at two or three years where everybody has to work together anyway. He's got plenty of time to always come back and negotiate with those parties. He's got plenty of time to come back to this House—or whoever the Minister may be—but no he's going to retain a power to enforce something that isn't needed at this time and that would take a lot of uncertainty out of farmers' interests at the moment if they knew they were working in an industry agreement they knew that they were working under those agreements to get the best options. But now they don't have that because all they know is that in two years' time the Minister at a whim could decide that they haven't performed and then create a new level of regulation. So I implore the Minister in his good nature and the way he treats issues to actually do that in practice as well and not have a bill that actually does the opposite from good faith because I've never heard of a negotiation where you come to an agreement and then two years later one party can override it."