Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): There were more oxymorons in that last speech than there are between the parties that currently make up the Government at the moment. That speaker actually stood up and he basically said We're not going to rush this." He hasn't actually noticed that we're in urgency. I also noticed that the Minister was sitting there actually really really finding it difficult not to shake his head through some of that commentary particularly when that member got up and said "Rest assured the cavalry's here. We're going to look after it. We're going to make sure that these guys don't do anything that we didn't want them to." So I'd be really interested when you get up to make your next speech on this bill Mr Patterson if you would like to elaborate on that and just exactly what it is the cavalry's saving.Our speaker before you David Bennett has alluded to a few things that he sees that are likely to be dropped into these terms of reference that we don't know about. So I would really love you to elaborate on what it was that the cavalry was coming to save that the Minister had on the table; so we would appreciate that.There are a few other things that you talked about. You talked about farmers being the heroes and you talked about the commodity trap.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't.BARBARA KURIGER: Sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. The member talked about our farmers being heroes and the member talked about foreign companies coming in and making the farmers be price-takers. So I've actually just got a little quote here that I'd like to put across. I put a question in recently to the Minister Damien O'Connor and I said "Further to question 8923 why is it that the Minister has not been able to provide Cabinet with any briefings in respect of his Rural Communities portfolio?" He came back the Minister saying "The Government has prioritised policies that were included in its 100-day plan. Many of these policies including the families package and restrictions on foreign buyers help rural communities."So I'm actually having trouble understanding how we are trying to protect these heroes who are New Zealand farmers which you said in your speech. We know that New Zealand First and the Government's policies are totally anti - foreign investment. We know that many of these companies that are coming in and setting up in competition with Fonterra—a lot of it is driven by foreign investment so there's going to be a lot of explaining to do when we get further down the track with this bill.But this bill really is a band-aid. It's a band-aid for changing the date of the expiry for the South Island. But what I'm hearing a lot out in our communities is that this Government apart from this whole change of Government scenario now thinks they have to change everything. And there's nothing worse than change for the sake of change because every time the Government says they're going to change something everybody goes "To what?" and we go "We don't know; they won't tell us." Where are the terms of reference?The member over there was talking before about David Bennett being right off track. Well tell us what is on track. Tell us what is in these terms of reference because when the last Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (DIRA) consultation went on the Commerce Commission made a finding and it recommended at that stage that the DIRA regulations stay in place. So they did a finding they did a review. They did it and put out the findings. That's only literally two years' ago.Following on from that the Ministry for Primary Industries sent people out into the field. They had various meetings they had consultation processes going on they had 105 submissions going in—what does this Government think is going to be any different or who are these people going to be that are going to submit anything different to what they did before? You've already got access to the submissions. You've already got access to everything that was said before. You've already got the Commerce Commission's report so if you're looking at something that's not in these reports then it is very fair for David Bennett to be asking the questioners "What are you going to add?" Is the member going to find something else? Is the Minister going to find out—sorry Madam Deputy Speaker. So it is the same group of farmers out there and you talked about them being heroes but I get the same suspicion right now that this bill is going to throw up something in those terms of reference that is unexpected. Because if those terms of reference were going to be straightforward then why is this bill being rushed under urgency? And why can't we have an idea of what is going to be in those terms of reference before it comes along?We don't know who's going to lead this review. We don't know what industry involvement there will be and I know that after this debate today—we've already been asked these questions that the shareholders and farmers in Fonterra are going to come and ask us "What does this mean?" We have no indication about anything around the time frames—the costs. You know everything that happened in the first 100 days of this Government the majority of it was "Look let's just go and get another review." It's more money. It's more cost. It's actually people out there asking "Why can't decisions be made on information that's already been provided? Why do we have to do another review?" So I think the onus is on the Minister and on the members of the Minister's Government to explain why there's going to be another review when there was a review done under the previous Minister recently.I also understand that yes there's a 31 May date coming up and I do understand that there's a time frame running. But actually if this Government was serious about making some change there's been plenty of time to make some change. There have been a number of years where the Minister has been involved in going through some of these processes as well. Were there not any ideas on that other side of the House before actually going through this process? And if there were other ideas on the other side of the House we want to know what they are. It is just diabolical that we could have this put up.The member talked about Federated Farmers lobbying. Now if you were up with the play you might realise that Federated Farmers did do a lot of lobbying and there were some concerns within Federated Farmers for a period of time. But then more recently as we got through this process Federated Farmers came to some arrangement with Fonterra whereby they had actually sat down as a group of people and figured out some spaces where they could stay on the same page. They had worked out that if they followed a specific time frame then that could be acceptable to all parties.So I'm just trying to work out who all the different players are that are expected to come into this review. The only reason I think there would be different players coming into this review would be if there were different terms of reference that were wider and broader than the terms of reference that were given for the last review and went wider than the Commerce Commission and started to bring all sorts of other things into the review.So the onus really—I'm looking for some answers from the speakers on the other side of the House. We want some reassurance. We want some reassurance on behalf of our farmers that this bill that you're wanting to pass through the House this afternoon is not just a cover sheet for a whole lot of other stuff that lies underneath it. We want to make sure that this Government is on level pegging with farmers.We all know that we go back to the formation of Fonterra and we do hear that from time to time it was the Labour Government that played a part in that. I think it would be an appalling day in this Parliament if something went by in this piece of legislation that was unknown to the farmers and the good heroes of Fonterra as Mr Patterson described them. I think it's time to be up front. It's time to tell us what these terms of reference are. It's time to tell us what this review is really about. If you want to save some money go back to the review that was just done and do some thinking and some work yourselves and let us know what that's going to be. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker"