Farmers' Mutual Group Bill

I move, That the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill be now read a second time. This is a private bill promoted by the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. The organisation has its head in the fine city of Palmerston North, and I see a member opposite who, in fact, worked in the same building. The organisation is in the heart of the city and it is a very proud member of the Manawatū, so I was very pleased to be approached by it to bring the bill before the House. I am pleased to see the progress that it has made, and I want to thank David Carter and members of the Primary Production Committee for that speedy progress through the select committee stage.

The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association is one of New Zealand’s longest-established and very proud rural service companies. The Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association and its predecessors have provided general insurance to farmers and members of the rural community for over 100 years. The Primary Production Committee has given very careful consideration to the bill and recommends that it be passed with only very minor amendments drafted to enhance the clarity and style. I thank the select committee for those changes, and I also want to ensure that the officials of the Ministry of Economic Development and parliamentary counsel are thanked too, because I know they have been doing the work of making that happen and are satisfied with what they have done.

In essence, the bill entrenches the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association’s mutual status so it remains owned by its members, preserves its principal business of providing risk insurance to rural folks, gives the organisation the same capacity and powers as a company, which will allow it to broaden its range of products and services to better meet member needs, and improves the organisation’s accountability to its members through the imposition of a modern governance regime based on the Companies Act 1993. It gives the organisation a new name—it will be called the Farmers’ Mutual Group, which at least will mean that it will not have to change from being known as “FMG”.

The company undertook an extensive consultation programme on the bill with its 35,000 members, prior to the bill’s introduction into the House. I know that members who have not been close to this and are watching the speed of it will like to know that there were no objections and no negative comments on the bill at all. Members were overwhelmingly in favour of preserving their mutual status, and supported the proposed direction in the bill.

In conclusion, the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association has advised me that it supports the select committee’s conclusions. It endorses the bill as reported back. I commend the select committee’s report to the House and I thank the Primary Production Committee and the House for their cooperation and support on this bill.

I rise to support the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill in its second reading. At the outset, to provide clarity to the House, I want to repeat something I said to the Primary Production Committee at the time we started the deliberations: I am a member of the Farmers’ Mutual Group and have my farms insured with this organisation.

I first became really interested in this organisation when I attended a dinner, in 2005 in Mr Maharey’s city of Palmerston North, to celebrate 100 years of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I commend to any members of the House, if they are short of bedtime reading, to grab a copy of the book Pride, Passion and Parochialism—A History of FMG. I have found it a fascinating read. Having finished with The Hollow Men last Christmas, I am continuing with this book now.

I find the history of the formation of this quite remarkable organisation really interesting. It is about farmers over 100 years ago, who were feeling they were being ripped off by British insurance companies, and who were finding that their fire insurance rates were becoming astronomical. They themselves set about trying to solve the problem by forming a whole lot of mutuals.

If any members were to read the history they would note that Parliament receives quite a lot of mention in the book’s early stages, because a Mr Kirkbride, who was the member for Manukau, was in fact someone who had almost dedicated his political career to the passing of the first legislation, the Mutual Fire Insurance Bill, which came through the House around 1903. He said at the time of the second reading on 22 July 1903: “The Bill is for the purpose of enabling settlers not actually living in a town to form mutual fire-insurance associations …”. What he was saying there is that this legislation was very much targeted at real farmers, who were establishing themselves in New Zealand at that time. He went on to say that the British-owned stock and station companies were relentlessly marketing fire insurance premiums, and that there was a need for sensible alternatives.

Subsequent to the passing of that legislation we saw provincial mutuals, or regional mutuals, establishing themselves all around New Zealand, and continuing to flourish. Then in 1978—relatively recently—they all came under one umbrella, and the head office was established for the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association in Palmerston North. So the book is a real, true, and interesting history. What we obtain when we read that book is knowledge of the determination and tenacity of the then farming community, who, with their farming leaders, were intent on making sure they got reputable insurance that was affordable to the industry.

When the matter came before the Primary Production Committee, what struck me was that that determination was something that was still required, because there were indeed some obstacles that had to be overcome through the select committee process. I am referring, of course, to none other than the Ministry of Economic Development, whose officials came before the select committee and basically said that because the ministry was in the process of doing a review, there was no alternative but to hold this legislation until the review was completed, and then any subsequent legislation might be passed by this Parliament.

💬 Simon Power: You can rely on the bureaucrats!

Well, it was typical of the bureaucracy. It is no wonder it has got so large; I guess bureaucrats have to find something to do.

The good news is that the select committee was not persuaded by that argument. A huge amount of work had been done by the Farmers’ Mutual Group, starting in 2004, to get the legislation through its processes as a private bill. The committee members, in total, were not prepared to buy an argument provided by bureaucracy that they should be held up from achieving what they wanted to achieve just because the Government had embarked on another review.

In conclusion, I take the opportunity to thank all members of the select committee for their work. The bill was one of the more fascinating and interesting ones we have had. I certainly take this opportunity to thank the officers of the Farmers’ Mutual Group who came along and—I think I can say—politely expressed their frustration the system and with bureaucracy, but who helped us to get through some sensible amendments. I certainly hope that the legislation we are in the process of passing today stands the Farmers’ Mutual Group in good stead for the next 100 years. I also make special mention of Parliamentary Counsel officer Catherine Yates, who was invaluable through the process.

Finally, I say that there was some haste in the way the bill was conducted through the select committee and, more important, some haste in the way it is now being conducted through Parliament today. I think that needs an explanation. Mr Maharey was quite correct to point out that consultation had occurred with the Farmers’ Mutual Group and its members before the bill came to the select committee. There were no submissions in opposition, apart from perhaps the advice we got from the Ministry of Economic Development.

But the reason we have been keen for Parliament to progress the bill through all its stages is in fact not just one of importance but also of sentiment—that is, that Mr Peter Jensen, who has been a member of the board of the Farmers’ Mutual Group for the last 16 years and who has been its chairman for the last 5 years, has given notice that he intends to retire from the organisation at its annual general meeting, which is scheduled for 25 August this year. It was suggested to us that it would be very helpful, and very much a tribute to the work of Mr Peter Jensen, if Parliament could cooperate—as indeed it is doing so today—in making sure that this legislation goes through all stages in the House and is ready for the Royal assent, so that that can be announced and completed to mark the retirement of Mr Jensen, who has done a superb job for this organisation.

I want to add, as the other local member of Parliament from the surrounding districts of the Farmers’ Mutual Group head office, my quick comments on this matter. I was just listening to David Carter talk about the contribution of Mr Jensen and of the need to expedite this legislation as a tribute to him, prior to the Farmers’ Mutual Group annual general meeting. I was just thinking to myself: “I hope it wasn’t supposed to be a surprise.”

💬 Hon David Carter: It wasn’t.

Oh, that is great. All right, as long as we have not ruined that. I take this opportunity to say thanks to the Primary Production Committee for the work it has done on the bill. David Carter in his usual deft and polite way has made reference to a couple of obstacles that needed to be jumped. He probably put it more politely than most of us would in respect of the role of the Ministry of Economic Development. The Hon Steve Maharey as the proposer of the bill has done a great job of ensuring that all political parties, once the matter was reported back to the House, were supportive of the matter being expedited through all remaining stages in one sitting. We thank him for guiding the bill through that passage.

I noticed that there were actually some minor amendments to the bill that the select committee has recommended back at the second reading and, no doubt, the Committee stage. I think if we pause for a moment and look at those recommendations, around the interpretation of the registrar, the membership, the change of name, the constitution, the rights and powers attached to the membership, and various other matters, including the alteration of members’ rights, we will see it goes to show that despite the public’s view of the parliamentary process, the select committee process adds value. It adds value to a bill’s passage. There were some matters that the select committee reported to the House it believed needed tidying up. I have no doubt that the House and the Committee of the whole House will adopt the recommendations of the select committee over the course of the next short while.

I say, in particular, if anybody from Farmers’ Mutual Group is listening to this debate, that despite a rather focused political debate on many other issues over the last month or two, this is one of those occasions when members across the House can actually take some pride in the way they conduct themselves in seeing legislation like this, which helps an organisation, move through the House as speedily as possible. On that note—unlike the Ministry of Economic Development—I will delay it no longer.

I am very grateful to have heard the contribution made by Mr David Carter, who explained a number of things to us about this bill. New Zealand First had already decided it would support the passage of the bill all the way through because we thought it made sense, but we were not aware that the rationale behind that was to ensure the legislation was passed before the Farmers’ Mutual Group annual general meeting, so that Mr Peter Jensen could have some recognition of the work he has put in behind it. That makes New Zealand First even more pleased that we have cooperated in this case.

There is an interesting thing about the history of it. Mr Carter mentioned a Mr Kirkbride, a former member for Manukau. I always stay at a hotel in Māngere just off Kirkbride Road, and I just wonder whether it is named after the same person. If it is the same person, then every time I go down there it will ring a special bell in my head.

💬 Hon David Carter: They’ll be able to name a street in Rarotonga.

Ha, ha! There is a thing called Ara Metua, which goes all the way around. It is called the Old Road.

There is more than just a simple name change in this legislation, obviously. I guess to understand that we have to understand why there is only one remaining mutual association under the Act, which was obviously put in place in 1903 for some very, very good reasons, as have been explained by Mr Carter. It was updated in 1955, but really it no longer serves the purpose as well as it might for modern society. I quote from the report back, which states: “The Farmers’ Mutual Group retains its mutuality under this bill, but it will also have the powers, capacity, and governance regime of a company under the Companies Act 1993.” I think that sentence basically explains what the purpose of the bill is.

The select committee, however, as has been pointed out, made a number of changes to the wording, which obviously improves the quality of the legislation but has not made any substantive change. Once again, I agree with the preceding speaker, Simon Power, that select committees actually do add value to legislation by trawling through it and by acting as the vehicle for participatory democracy. I think that improves the procedure.

I pay credit to the work done by David Carter. The critical point is that under first past the post it was almost a given that members of the governing party had to be the chairs of select committees. Under the first MMP Government—the coalition between New Zealand First and National—that sentiment was retained. But as time went on it became understood that chairs of select committees do not necessarily have to be part of a governing party, that those roles could be given out to members from other parties, and that MPs took their responsibilities and roles seriously. In this particular case, Mr David Carter is a member of the Opposition, but he is the chair of that select committee, and he sees that particular function as being the most important part of it. It shows in this legislation that David Carter has acted responsibly as the chair of the select committee, which is an agency of Parliament.

I think that shows a recognition that we no longer need to think in terms of first-past-the-post politics. We have genuinely entered the MMP era. For that I give credit to the Labour Government. Gradually and slowly it has had the fortitude to give members of other parties the confidence and credibility to chair those select committees, and I say that very much as a non-Government member who has chaired a select committee not only over this Parliament but the one before. So I give credit to all of the committee members here, because obviously they have taken their duties seriously, improved the legislation, and have effectively supported the major thrust of it. I believe it is good to be part of a Parliament that acts cooperatively, as we have acted this afternoon in respect of this legislation.

I rise to make a fairly brief contribution to this debate. First of all I indicate, as other parties have indicated, that the Green Party is supporting the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. It clearly makes sense in terms of providing greater flexibility in terms of the services that can be provided by the mutual group, and it also makes sense in terms of the modernisation of its constitution and legal arrangements, which are eminently sensible. Of course, we absolutely support those things and echo the comments of previous contributors.

I will touch on one other issue that I think is worth considering in relation to the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association and the issues of insurance around farming generally. It is worth noting that it is important to have greater flexibility and modernisation of these services because of the significant challenges that farming faces in New Zealand today, in particular in terms of the issue of climate change. This issue has been well recognised now by all parties in this House, and we have to recognise the impacts on the farming community that climate change presents.

We are a nation that is still very much economically dependent on agriculture, and we know that we are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change at this end of the Pacific, in relation to the predicted increase of extreme weather events. In terms of the impacts that climate change will have on weather patterns within our country, we have started to see some of the impacts of those things already. We are told that climate change is likely to lead to the wet areas getting wetter and the dry areas getting drier. Again, if the events of recent weeks are of any indication, that presents significant issues for our nation—for small towns, for rural communities, and for farmers.

We know that the impacts of climate change will have effects on the kinds of crops that can be grown. There is already research going on in terms of developing new forms of pasture to deal with changing climatic conditions. One has to start to ask what effect that will have on the breeds of livestock that can be carried on New Zealand land, both in terms of pastoral changes and climatic changes. So to build a genetic base that is resilient enough to face these kinds of changing weather patterns is a very significant issue for us, and it is one that anyone who is interested in farmers’ insurance has to take account of.

The other big impact, and this is an issue for food security all around the world, is that of seasonal predictability. It is my view—and it is a personal view—that the impact of the unpredictability of our seasons will be huge in terms of the security of food supply around the world. So we have to take these things seriously.

Another issue around insurance that farmers need to consider is in regard to the contribution that farming makes to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, both in terms of the direct impacts of climate change itself on New Zealand agriculture and in terms of the effects on consumer resistance to New Zealand produce if we are not living up to our clean, green image. These are significant issues, and we know that there are a number of environmental impacts of farming that we need to consider: greenhouse gas emissions, as I have mentioned; impacts on water quality, which is a huge and growing issue because of the intensification and expansion of dairying in this country; and issues around soil erosion and the loss of some of our most productive soils—or certainly very valuable soils—into the sea at a very fast rate, internationally speaking.

I say that as a precursor to saying that one of the issues that has not been fully addressed in this country and has not been taken seriously by many people is the benefit of a move towards organic farming as a way of addressing sustainability issues around farming. We know that the impacts of a conversion to organic farming are significant, and we know that organic farming methods are environmentally friendly and sustainable, but the impacts on climate change specifically have not been well understood. Synthetic nitrogen—and New Zealand is a high user of synthetic nitrogen—is, on its own, a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. It is not necessarily directly relevant to New Zealand, but there are lessons to be drawn from the UK. The manufacture of synthetic nitrogen is the single-biggest energy use in agriculture, making up 37 percent of energy use. Every kilogram of nitrogen fertiliser produced leads to nearly 7 kilograms of carbon dioxide, and fertilisers are the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions from agriculture and the single largest source of nitrous oxide emissions globally.

These are the kinds of considerations we have to start taking into account. A conversion to organics, and a nationwide commitment to a move towards organics, is where we have to start thinking, particularly given the fact that we have the National Organics Conference this weekend. This is something that we need to start to pay attention to. If we are talking about sustainable agriculture, that has to include a very strong national commitment to organics. I say this in relation to the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill simply because these issues relate to farmers’ insurance, and these issues are about future-proofing agriculture in New Zealand. These issues are about how we are going to protect ourselves both in terms of the climate change impacts on our agriculture and in terms of the consumer resistance that our farmers will increasingly start to face if we do not come to grips with these issues.

I raise these matters to give some broad context to this discussion around the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill, but also to reiterate that the Green Party is supporting this eminently sensible bill, and that we are behind it 100 percent.

Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou te Whare.

💬 Nathan Guy: He’s back!

Welcome back, Madam Assistant Speaker. Two months ago there was a very special gala event in Rotorua: the presentation of the Ahuwhenua Trophy to the Māori Farmer of the Year, the person who most represents excellence in Māori farming. The award, established in 1932 by Sir Apirana Ngata, was supported by Meat and Wool New Zealand, AgResearch, the BNZ, Te Puni Kōkiri, and others to highlight the significant contribution that Māori agriculture makes to the nation’s bottom line. In the game of “blame and shame” that has been associated with the word “Māori” in recent weeks, it is interesting to note that the undeniable successes and achievements of Māori in agriculture seem to have slipped by without notice. So the timing of the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill could not have been better placed to remind the House of that prestigious event on the Māori farming calendar.

This year the three finalists were the Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation, whose Pah Hill Station is one of 10 stations the incorporation runs between Ruapehu and the Whanganui River; the Tuaropaki Trust, north of Taupō, whose land includes a $30 million geothermal power plant, 30 acres of temperature-controlled export tomato and paprika crops, and satellite and wireless communications; and the Matariki Partnership, north of Ruatōria, which supports 3,000 owners who run sheep and beef on 2,500 hectares and is planting exotic pine and native bush while maintaining the growth of mānuka. As my illustrious co-leader Tariana Turia was quick to point out, the Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation took out the title, although I would be just as quick to say, as they do in rugby circles, that they were all winners on the night, for what we know about Māori farming is that it provides us with ample evidence of excellence—something that this whole House can benefit from.

So the Māori Party sees it as entirely appropriate that we are considering at this time the financial mechanisms to protect innocent farmers and other members of the rural community through the core services of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. This bill looks to preserve the basic status of the Farmers’ Mutual Group, modernise its governance, and expand its authorities and powers. That includes provisions for the Farmers’ Mutual Group to become a reporting entity under the Financial Reporting Act and to confirm its capacity to give rebates to members.

The two submissions to the Primary Production Committee were both in favour of the bill. The Māori Party will also be supporting it as part of our philosophy of advancing the opportunities for Māori, while also noting the primary place that Māori hold as the largest natural grouping of pastoral farmers in Aotearoa, worth an estimated $7.5 billion. At another level, 10 percent of the farming sector workforce is Māori, with some 15,500 people working in agriculture, forestry, and farming—mostly in horticulture, or in raising sheep and cattle. If the finalists for the Ahuwhenua Trophy are anything to go by, the Māori farming sector is demonstrating advanced thinking, strategy, and planning, which will lead to increased productivity gains for all sectors of the industry.

The Māori farming sector, as with the wider farming sector, needs to have the support of an organisation that can offer a diverse range of services, meet the expanding financial needs of today’s rural sector, provide greater levels of accountability, and rationalise insurance services, all of which the Farmers’ Mutual Group is doing. It is a mark of its success that it has been able to cope with structural adjustments and still have the unequivocal support of its membership for the changes put forward in this bill. Of course, central to that has been the concept of mutuality: reinvesting profits back into the business, for the benefit of all the members. That concept resonates well with the Māori values of manaakitanga, the principle of care, generosity, and mutual respect; and of kotahitanga, the principle of unity, of purpose, and of direction.

I do not want to go over ground already covered by other speakers, but I would like to make reference to issues that Māori farmers might want to see addressed as part of the core business of the Farmers’ Mutual Group. The 2004 report of the Controller and Auditor-General into the client service performance of the Māori Land Court and Māori Trustee noted the special challenges that face Māori farmers, and specifically the long-standing, unresolved issues associated with multiple ownership, which have created unwieldy restrictions for Māori landowners who want to develop their land. The report noted the difficulty for Māori landowners in getting finance, because banks and other financial institutions insist on unencumbered collateral, such as general land, for any loan or mortgage. The lack of individual ownership and the restriction on the transferability of title make it almost impossible for communal Māori land to be considered as collateral. It is a strange argument really, when one considers that companies with multiple shareholders seem to get finance easily for the development of their businesses.

But many Māori farming entities are hindered in their ability to access finance and, consequently, their capacity to succeed is also limited. That leads to Māori organisations adopting a more conservative approach and risk-averse attitude, leaving them ill-prepared to take advantage of the entrepreneurial equity market. It would be of benefit to Māori farmers, and to the nation generally, for the Farmers’ Mutual Group to look at ways to help Māori farmers and organisations to achieve productivity gains for both the sector and the economy as a whole, by targeting productivity levels, improved financial performance, land use efficiency, and the increased utilisation of capital assets as part of the services offered to Māori farmers and the rural community.

The Māori Party will support this bill going to the Committee stage, in the interests of helping the Māori farming sector to become more productive and a more influential player in the national economy. Tēnā koutou katoa.

I just want to put on the record that I—like the Hon David Carter, chair of the Primary Production Committee—am a member of the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association. I just want that recorded in Hansard. If I can, I will cover a little background about the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association, a little about the bill as it weaved its way through the select committee, and a little about what the future holds, I believe, for the association and this bill as it progresses its way through the House this evening.

As was touched on by one of our previous speakers, in the early 1900s a group of farmers came together to form this mutual group. They had no capital, no business plan, and no marketing experience. They set up the mutual group because they were concerned about the ravages of fire and what it could do to their businesses. We have to reflect back a hundred years to what it would have been like for those farmers. They would have had crops of barley or wheat, and, if a fire went through that and into their crops of stored hay for their winter supplements, we can imagine how it would have impacted on their farming business. So when we look at the 1920s right through to the 1950s, we can see the result of what our pioneering forefathers did for agriculture. They had the foresight to set up this group, and I think that is absolutely fantastic.

As the member David Carter mentioned, in 1978 the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association, through amalgamation, set up its head office in Palmerston North. Of course, I have a great affinity with that city, having been educated at Massey University.

💬 Hon David Carter: Go and get a real degree—at Lincoln.

I would tell Mr Carter not to worry about that; I will challenge him about that outside the House later.

In 2002 the association was re-branded, and now it has 35,000 members and 55,000 customers. For a while during the select committee process, I was a little bit worried that this bill would get caught up in the spider web of the Review of Financial Products and Providers. This review has been around and stumbling through the Cabinet process for quite a while, and it was meant to be reported back in February 2007. Now the report-back date will be in November 2007, and I think Lianne Dalziel’s office has had a fair bit to do with that. I was really concerned that this bill would be caught in the spider web of that review. That is just the review I am talking about; not the legislation coming into Parliament that would take another 2 or 3 years to get here. Thank goodness that the Parliamentary Counsel Office stepped in and managed to forge this bill together. The Ministry of Economic Development and the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association were working hard on it for 2 years but they could not quite get it together, so thank goodness for the good work of the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Primary Production Committee.

National supports this bill. I think it is important for the association as it moves forward, because it wants to diversify and to move with the times. If it could not get this bill through the House now, then it would feel that it was missing out on opportunities.

I was interested before to hear Mr Tanczos when he was talking about climate change, because I think that is one of the real challenges that the association faces going forward. We all know that over the last 100 years the farming sector has had to face the challenges of climate change. The sector has faced snowfalls, flooding, hill country erosion, earthquakes, and droughts.

But now the association is challenged to think about the future. What is the future in terms of risk for our farming community? I would ask whether it is something like biological terrorism. When we think about the UK and its current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which occurred very close to a research plant, there are questions that I think need to be answered. Members should think about the bird flu. These are the challenges that the association faces. The group needs to think ahead about the real issues that the farming primary production industry of New Zealand has to face. I think that is partly why the group wants to get the changes made through this bill this evening.

Just in closing, I wish the association well on its AGM at the end of this month. It has already gone out and advertised to all its members and sought feedback. It got 28 written responses, all pretty much in favour of this bill as it passes through this House this evening.

I just want to put on the record that I wish Peter Jensen all the very best. He has been involved with the association for 16 years and is choosing to step down. I acknowledge not only his contribution with the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association but also what he has done for New Zealand farming as a whole.

I would like to make a brief contribution, as well. Today, for the benefit of those who are out there listening, is members’ day, and this is the time when we deal with members’ and local bills. First on the Order Paper today is the Farmers’ Mutual Group Bill. Those who have been listening will have heard quite a little bit of the history of the Farmers’ Mutual Group and the significant part it has played in the development of the insurance fabric of what was firstly the rural sector but is now a much wider sector throughout New Zealand.

The Farmers’ Mutual Group is very much a symbol of why New Zealand has been a success in so many areas. There was an issue 105 years ago; there was an inequity in what was being charged in terms of premiums for cover and an inequity in the adequacy of the cover. What did those people do who were affected? They rolled up their sleeves and created a mutual. From that mutual several other mutuals sprang up around the country, and the need that was glaringly obvious was fulfilled.

The history, as has been relayed today, is that those mutuals came together under the one umbrella, so that today we have the Farmers’ Mutual Insurance Association providing a very worthwhile service to New Zealand. Both Nathan Guy and David Carter have declared an interest in the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I have to, perhaps, declare that I do not have an interest, but that I am a beneficiary. I make the point that I am not actually insured with Farmers’ Mutual Group and do not have any association with it, but I believe that I am a beneficiary of it because it has had an impact against which other insurance companies measure themselves. The fact that I have rates that I can afford through an alternative company is largely because of the impact that the Farmers’ Mutual Group has had over a very long period, particularly since the different groups all came together into one and became a significant force throughout the country.

I predict a good future for the Farmers’ Mutual Group. I think the very fact that the group has said that it needs to look at its product range and at the legislation that was restricting it shows that it has some foresight, some innovation, and some desire to meet the market and create a variety of new products. I think that gives us a very clear example that the group is looking to what its customers need, and to how it can grow its base and increase its financial strength. So it is a good thing that we are handling this legislation, so that the group is not delayed in doing that.

I just say, as an aside, that in about 18 months time, when National brings competition back into accident compensation, I will look forward to any products that the Farmers’ Mutual Group might want to introduce into that arena. I am quite sure that the rural community and several other sectors of the business community are looking forward to the day that happens.

The Farmers’ Mutual Group is symbolic of the success of New Zealand in so many fields. I mentioned earlier that the mutuals were set up to provide a fix-it, or a solution, to a situation that occurred in the insurance industry. Similarly, we have seen co-ops that have sprung up through the whole fabric of New Zealand rural business. If I look at the percentage of leaders that the rural community has produced, across a range of business options, I think it is quite exciting and encouraging, and it kind of sets New Zealand apart from a lot of other countries. If there is a problem, we will fix it. If we cannot market, if we cannot insure, if we need to create a new piece of machinery, or whatever, we will fix the problem. It is very much a symbol of the success of New Zealand agriculture. It is a good thing that we are doing today, in taking the next step for the Farmers’ Mutual Group.

I also want to comment about that leadership. It is fitting that we get this legislation through for the sake of Peter Jensen, because not only has he been involved in the Farmers’ Mutual Group but he has been involved in other things that have been significant, as well—the fertiliser industry, for example. It is that kind of leadership that we need to acknowledge. This is not the time for the tall-poppy syndrome; we want to extol those people who have done a very good job for New Zealand and will continue to do so. We look forward to a number of rural leaders taking significant roles in shaping and growing New Zealand in a way that everybody can benefit from.

The Farmers’ Mutual Group is now a significant player, not only in the insurance industry but in the financial industry of New Zealand. The group has stood the test of time. It has a wide variety of products, and it wants to increase those. I thank the House for agreeing to put this bill through all stages today. It is an important thing that we are doing in allowing this legislation to go through. There has been no dissent whatsoever in the debates that have come forward. I look forward to the House now expediting the voting and seeing this legislation enacted.

Bill read a second time.

Procedure