Bennett DavidHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you to the Minister of Agriculture for that introduction to the bill. He covered a number of the changes that the Primary Production Committee had proposed and were accepted. So I thank him for making those changes because they were important to tidy up on in the bill.The essence of this bill deals with farm debt and any mediation that may be required if a farmer gets in trouble with that debt. Now we don't perceive that there will be a lot of cases where this bill will actually become a reality but it is something that is out there as a tool for farmers and banks and other financiers should such a situation arise—it has inevitably arisen in the past and will continue to arise in the future as part of the normal course of any business arrangement. However at this point of time in the farming cycle one can see that this bill could actually be very much needed when we consider the Draconian legislation that is upon the farming sector now from this Government that will force many farmers to re-evaluate their financial position and force banks to re-evaluate their lending processes.It is not something that has been caused by international markets or any failing on behalf of a farmer or any adverse biosecurity event in New Zealand that has caused that pressure on the New Zealand farming sector. The pressure on the New Zealand farming sector lies directly at the feet of one Minister—Minister O'Connor—and the New Zealand First Party that have been backing up that Minister and have been doing a series—Hon Damien O'Connor: I was so kind to you.Hon DAVID BENNETT:—of silly and inane policies that have destroyed the backbone of New Zealand's economy. That Minister may laugh it off but look at forestry for example and the silly and inane policy of the New Zealand First Party that required an exemption from our overseas investment rules so that overseas purchasers who have come in and purchased forestry—DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's all very interesting but we are debating the second reading of a bill that's been reported back to the House so stick to the bill.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Yes.Hon Damien O'Connor: Stick to your facts.Hon DAVID BENNETT: We are and as that Minister finished his speech looking at the history and the context we're looking at the context now and it's vital that we put the other side of the context from what the Minister put forward because he only puts forward one side of the context. If we look at the situation—Hon Damien O'Connor: I thought I was very balanced.Hon DAVID BENNETT: What did you say Minister? Balanced? There was no balance in the Minister's speech at all. And if we look at that situation in forestry another great shining example of the economic genius of the New Zealand First Party was to stop foreign investment and that is actually—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me but stick to the bill without all those accompaniments. I appreciate that you are able to put some context around it but you should actually be focusing on the bill as reported back. This is the second reading where the House is accepting the bill as it's reported back from the select committee. I've just checked the report from the select committee. There is nothing in there that gives that wider context. So that's why I'm narrowing it for you.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well when we look at that wider context it's a farm debt mediation bill and the need for such a bill would be because of the policies that you've seen in recent years from this Government—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't bring the Speaker into the debate.Hon DAVID BENNETT:—and that is the context that we're looking at in that regard. The members across the other side may like to ignore that but the reality is that the policies that they have engaged in have put farmers in a predicament where they may have to use this bill.Marja Lubeck: I feel a third warning coming up.Hon DAVID BENNETT: Did you say something over there? No I didn't think so. One of the big things that we had to look at in the select committee was the definition of farm" because in many cases farming businesses are partnerships and they are more than just the physical farmer; they could be a husband-and-wife partnership where one of the parties may be working in a different environment like in the town or in another off-farm income. So we wanted to make sure that those kinds of situation were adequately captured by the bill and that was one of the changes that are in the bill.Another change was in regard to security interest and that is in clause 6. There was a little bit of divergence between the parties in this regard. The National Party felt that the security interest that had been enabled in this bill to kick it off effectively is a bit wider than what is needed in the sense that it could include a hire purchase and something like that whereas we would rather have seen the clause actually be ad certum de minimus in the sense that a certain type of security interest would be the reason to set it off rather than just to have necessarily a hire purchase type of arrangement as setting off that farm debt mediation. So that was one point and the National Party made it clear in the report that there is a point of difference there between the National members of the committee and other members of the committee.In regard to the previous point I talked about with the definition of "farmer" we did come to agreement between the parties on that and all the parties that were in the select committee did agree on that wider definition. I think Amy Adams needs to take a lot of credit for that. She really raised the issue and pushed it through within the committee.There's another issue that was a big part of it. That was the cost of mediation. Now some of the members of the banking community and financiers and accountants raised the issue that the cost of mediation could be prohibitive for actual mediation to occur. There was a lot of debate within the committee around that because theoretically if you're in a position where you need mediation then potentially you won't have the disposable income or the cash flow to pay for the costs of specialists' advice for that very such mediation. So one of the changes that was made in this bill—and it was agreed by all parties—was in regard to the capping of the farmer's contribution of $2000 to the mediation costs. We had a variation of estimates of what that cost could be. Some believe that it might be well in excess of that and some felt that that was just the actual mediation-on-the-day costs. But effectively it gives a little bit of comfort to farmers so that they can progress through this process not feeling that the cost of the mediation is something that would be detrimental to them undertaking the process.So those were some of the big issues that were raised at the committee. Effectively this bill is based on Australian legislation that the New Zealand First Party had seen and wanted to push through and the Government of the day has picked it up. It's not going to be a fundamental change to the banking policies in New Zealand. It won't be a major change to the relationship between farmers and bankers. It will be potentially a tool that could be used in certain circumstances. But in circumstances like we have now with very strong international payments and prices coming to New Zealand primary producers one would not see the need for this to the extent that we will see the need because on the other side of the balance sheet for farmers is the high costs that are coming to them because of Government legislation and silly Government policies.So this bill will probably be used more than it is needed and that will be required because of the silly policies that we've seen come from New Zealand First that the Minister of Agriculture has promoted and pushed through this Parliament. So another bill that could be for the use of farmers and the financing community is not needed to the extent it will be because of the situation that farmers have been put into by the many policies that they are seeing that are attacking them across the board at this time. Thank you Madam Speaker."