O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I'd firstly like to thank the Primary Production Committee and all the members for dealing with this. I have to acknowledge New Zealand First who took the opportunity to bring a bill into the House that I guess sparked a whole process that then allowed the Government to pick that bill up to make some adjustments and then run it through what was a comprehensive select committee process and I think to get a far better bill out of it. I know that the second bill was considered thoroughly by the committee.Can I just work through a couple of the questions and I guess the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been referred to by a couple of the speakers. My understanding is that actually on the definition of farmer" going from "primary production operation" to a "primary production business" I think the select committee agreed on that but this was effectively a typo that didn't get into the legislation. So it's a tidy-up on that basis.The fact that we now have a date for commencement of the two parts of the bill is thankfully because the officials have done a great job in actually working through the proposals that we thought might have taken a little longer but actually they're a long way down the track. And that is in part because of the cooperation from the banks the fact that farmers and banks see the value in this and actually they want to get this up and running as quickly as possible. So it does save the process of Orders in Council when things get ready and you've got to go through that but now we're specifying the dates and I'm sure that we can meet those dates. So again the SOP is a tidy-up on those issues.Can I just acknowledge I guess the mediation process. There was a question there on clause 14—that is the experience from New South Wales has said that the sooner the mediation process is under way the better the likely outcome for both parties. In fact the experience from Australia when I spoke with Ministers and farmers was that actually the banks are often more likely to want this process than farmers are. So we'll see what happens here.I think actually even having this bill in the select committee and in the House has actually changed some of the behaviour of the banks towards some of the farmers that have come under pressure. That's a good thing if indeed it gives a fair outcome. I think there was I guess a view that this won't save farmers. I guess that's true if they're in a really bad situation. It may save their dignity and it may ensure that they work through a process where they feel they have some control to negotiate their way out. That has been an underlying objective of I guess the legislation as proposed. I go back and make reference to the 1990s I have to say and the 2000s where we had people advocating for such a process as we are putting through the House now and it wasn't a process focused on each and every detail; it was one of just ensuring some dignity and equality between the banks and the farmers as they work through these challenging times.In regard to the question from my coalition colleague Mark Patterson—look it's a fair question from farmers. My understanding is that that was sought because if you had as sometimes is the reality of a situation a farmer who is under huge pressure and can't run their farming operation as they should—there might be animal welfare issues there may be the risk of crops not being harvested because of personal pressure and mental health issues or whatever—then that farmer has the right to apply for mediation and there is a process to go through. But in the meantime of course there might be acute animal welfare issues that need to be addressed so the bank can apply to bring someone in. I guess we'll monitor that and if we think that there is abuse of that then actually it doesn't make the situation any worse than it is at the moment—not at all. But I'm sure that the banks will in good faith approach this whole new process using the legislation that we're passing.Look I'm not going to get into details of pressures on the farming sector other than to say there is $63 billion worth of debt out there—that's a lot of money. The reality is that the banks are just squeezing; they have been saying for five years that they want the debt paid down. The reality is that because of payouts and low returns in fact the debt has continued to go up. Because the banks have been considerate they have given some more working capital but now because we have—as Minister Parker said—a low exchange rate and low interest rates and we've got record commodity prices actually there's good income coming to farmers. What the banks are saying is "We're going to squeeze the working capital. We want you to repay the debt." So you know there is financial pressure and the banks are—whether you say it's right or wrong—wanting that debt paid down; probably the faster that it's paid down the more secure the primary sectors will be. So there's advantage of using that additional income that is coming into the sector now and paying down debt.Can I say again this bill is designed to bring some balance and some dignity some if not total equality; at least a little bit of equity when it comes to negotiation in times of trouble. I don't think that there's any more I can say. I think I've answered those questions. Once again I acknowledge the good work of the Primary Production Committee in helping to adjust this bill to give us a better outcome. I'm sure it will be well utilised by both the banks and the farmers."