Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm pleased to add my contribution to the first reading of this bill. Just in reference to Mr Bennett's speech for the first three minutes I was actually very much in agreement with Mr Bennett but then he completely lost the plot for the last few minutes of that contribution. But I'm here to talk to this bill and can I commend Mr Patterson for bringing this bill to the House. Certainly we are generally in agreement that we support the intent of this bill but it does need a lot of work and I'm sure that there will be many submissions made. I certainly hope so particularly from the farming sector farming groups but also the banking industry as well.You know it's a fact of life that some businesses can get into difficulty and have trouble paying back the money that they've borrowed I guess. But you know the function that banks play is actually vital to our economy and in ensuring that our whole national economy runs. But what this bill is doing I guess is it's adding a step prior to the appointment of a receiver or the potential appointment of a receiver. I think we mustn't forget that every secured creditor every bank under their security agreements has the right to appoint a receiver at some point. What we're doing with this bill is adding a step prior whereby there is a mediation that takes place. So I commend that. Certainly one would hope that as a result of that mediation a pathway forward can be found whereby a bank does not appoint a receiver but inevitably I guess it is the right of a secured creditor to do that. And I think what is lacking from the bill at the moment is—you know is this merely a step which can prevent the inevitable? It's not quite clear. Sure there might be a compulsory mediation step but again that may provide no comfort to the farmer concerned and it may just delay the inevitable. This bill may provide some comfort for the farming sector—that at least they can engage in those discussions—but again ultimately it can't remove the right of a secured creditor to appoint a receiver and I think that needs to be teased out some more in terms of the work that the select committee conducts on this bill. There are just a few other remarks I'd like to make in my remaining time. I guess the bill is talking about farm debt but I'm just interested in the scope because I know Mr Patterson mentioned fisheries—I think he mentioned fisheries—along the line but equally this bill could be applied to other primary sector industries such as aquaculture as well. It's farming that's done in the marine environment but again they all borrow money and they all have to deal with banks. So again the scope of this bill could extend beyond just simply agricultural borrowers. Who pays? And I know that the bill mentions that the Banking Ombudsman will pay but ultimately the costs will be borne somewhere along the line by the borrower and so we have to think of the merits of going through this additional process. Is it merely delaying the inevitable or can it ultimately come to a better outcome—and that's what we would like to see. So maybe these provisions could be beefed up.So there are a lot of issues that need to be teased out. But I support the intent of this bill and I certainly hope—and I'm sure—that the select committee will give it a thorough examination. Thank you.