Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well I'm a little bit confused actually because the bill that was introduced by Darroch Ball was actually roundly criticised because it was unworkable. We actually in the select committee did our very best to try and get that bill into a shape where it might actually make some difference and work but we couldn't get it there; it just simply wasn't possible. Fortunately the Minister of Agriculture has come to the rescue and has actually done a bit more work on it. I'm still yet to be convinced that this will work. It's a laudable attempt to have a bill that will work but I'm yet to be convinced and we'll just have to wait and see.I do share some of the concerns that the Hon Nathan Guy raised—the $6000. Will that be enough? Is that enough cost? I think it will actually cost more than that and I do have some experience in that from my former life with New Zealand Winegrowers when the wine industry went through a downturn after having had two large vintages in a row and then the effects of the global financial crisis coming a bit later through to the wine industry when there were a lot of issues around debt. So I've actually seen it first hand and have been involved in some of those negotiations. The problem is that by the time we get to a situation where this bill will be used it's already down the slippery slope and actually what you're really talking about at that stage is often what the exit plan is. I have seen from first-hand experience that that takes quite a lot for the people who are concerned to actually come to the realisation that there really isn't any point in continuing on and it's best just to move out.The problem is that the longer you delay it the more it costs. Now this will put a halt to those costs going up while you're in that situation—and I think that's a great thing—but emotions run high and sometimes the opportunity to take a step back and have a good look at the situation from a bit of distance will be helpful. It is not a simple process and I don't think that very many cases will end up being the happy ending that most people might think this bill will do. Why the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)? I don't know why we would have MPI involved in this at all. I don't think they're the right entity to be involved in a debt mediation bill at all. Maybe it's the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment; maybe it's someone else? Treasury I think the Hon Nathan Guy mentioned. What's the definition of a farm? That's going to be an interesting debate. All these things get far more complex when you get into the select committee and into the details. So we'll look forward to hearing how that will work.This is actually coming into sharp focus now because of this Climate Commission bill which will actually load more financial pressure on the farming sector. It already has agricultural risk which is around climate risk and suchlike which it's always had in the farming sector—international markets currency risk all of those things—and then now we're adding the uncertainty of an outrageous methane target when really the target should be CO2 emissions. This will likely bring forward those debt issues and make it much more difficult for rural New Zealand to get on with this. I was interested in the member Mark Patterson who mentioned the second- and third-tier lenders and that's interesting. Who is involved in this debt mediation bill? That will also be interesting and the definitions when we get into it in the bill.Yes we support it but it's qualified support. It is a difficult area. I am not convinced this bill is in great condition. We'll see if we are able to actually rescue it in the select committee and I look forward to that process.