Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2)

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a bill that has just gone through the Primary Production Committee. It had its genesis in the New Zealand First Party originally and has been taken over by the Government in this stage of the parliamentary process, and it gives a little bit more strength to the bill in having the officials around it to actually enable it to get to a more genuine place. The National Party has supported the bill through the process and in select committee has been very active in trying to resolve some of the smaller issues that are in the bill.

The nature of the bill is such that it provides a mediation process for farmers that may be in a position of default, or before default, in some kind of debt issue with their bankers. It’s a mediation process that is very much based on an Australian model that had been used in New South Wales for a number of years, and we had submitters to that effect—around the effectiveness of that regime in Australia. When it comes to New Zealand, the agricultural lending market is somewhat different from Australia in the sense that you have a large amount of debt per farm, which is quite different from over there. You also have a big sharemilking process in New Zealand, which means there’s quite a different debt loading in the sense that people can lend and borrow on cows, whereas, for example, in the Australian market you don’t have that ability. So there are some differences, and the bill doesn’t really incorporate those differences to any great degree.

It does take into account the fact that there could be multi-party mediation, and also the meaning of security interest, which was something that the National Party had a particular concern around, because that does take it much wider than just the normal banking arrangements. The definitions of “farmer” and “primary production business” were a big part of what the National Party looked at in the select committee stage, and that was to really make sure that we covered off situations where there was a partner of a potential debtor so that they would also be included in the legislation. That had effect, and all parties of the House agreed on that process.

I guess the real issue for the National Party around this bill is the actual potential need for it in reality. You know, as I said, there’s quite different banking arrangements in New Zealand from Australia and also in the nature of the pressure that is on the farming sector. In New Zealand, for example, we have a very big cooperative nature of our business arrangements, with cooperatives like Fonterra, Silver Fern Farms, Alliance, Ravensdown—you name it; the cooperatives are all through our agricultural sector, which is another point of difference. The New Zealand agricultural sector doesn’t face some of the challenges that we would see in other countries, and the use of this bill, we think, might be actually quite minimal, because a lot of the banking arrangements are made in a way so that the banks do not get into position to have to use legislation like this, which is, as I said, quite different from overseas.

We just have to look at the pressure that is on that farming sector. For example, just yesterday, the largest dairy processor in America went bankrupt. Last year, we saw the largest cooperative processer in Australia go under, and there are immense pressures on the corporate and cooperative sectors of our rural and provincial areas. This bill is an attempt—and I do acknowledge that the member for New Zealand First has made a genuine attempt in this bill—but the reality is it’s not going to have a lot of effect in the New Zealand market. It is more a bill of symbolism rather than a bill of significance. It is something that has attempted to try and cover a situation which is quite different than the New Zealand economic situation.

Now, I just want to take you back to those two major cooperative and corporate dairy companies that have gone under in a very short period of time. If we look at the pressure that’s on Fonterra, for example—and we’ll be doing the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act legislation in this House later in the year or early next year—the competitive pressure that’s in the New Zealand economy isn’t coming at the banking stage to the extent that it is actually coming at the regulation stage. There is a real point of difference here in the sense that regulation in New Zealand is really stifling our agriculture and horticulture industries. I see the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, writing something down, and he’ll be saying “Oh, no, banks are getting tighter” and all those things. That is true; there is an element of that, and Reserve Bank legislation changes that will come will tighten that even further. But, essentially, it’s a work-through arrangement in New Zealand banking relations between bankers and farmers. It’s not the nature of the relationship that we see in other countries, where bankers take a here and there approach, necessarily, to farmers.

So this bill is built on a premise that I think actually won’t be used as much as it possibly is intended to be used, and if it does get used in that way, it would actually take away from an existing banker-farmer relationship which is quite effective and has proven to be so over good and bad times. The New Zealand dairy industry and kiwifruit industry and suchlike have had tough times in the last decade, and those banking arrangements have stayed through that period of time. Now, I know the officials may be questioning that as well, but the reality is that that arrangement has worked, and it is a competitive commercial arrangement that does achieve its purpose. Legislation like this might, if anything, encourage banks to take advantage of another regime to deal with that relationship with farmers who may have debt when, in fact, the current relationship may have been much more effective and much better, and something that has proven itself to be effective in good and bad times.

So we will support this legislation because anything that can be done in the rural sector is to be supported—it’s very rare that we have a good bill going through this House for the rural sector—but in this case it’s not going to be a bill that’s going to make a huge lot of difference. If farmers out there think that this bill will actually save them in a situation where there is a high debt level and they have an inability to meet their mortgage, it won’t. It’s part of the process, but that process could already be engaging through other mechanisms currently in our agricultural and rural lending sectors. So although we are supporting this bill, its effectiveness is yet to be seen in the market, and, if anything, it will probably achieve the opposite from its purpose and will encourage more banks to take on these kinds of mediations, rather than to work on their relationships, which have been the effectiveness and strength of our system up to now.

The real issue we need to face is the pressure that’s being unrealistically put on our rural sector through legislation. That pressure is mounting. It’s caused a lot of distraction in the industries when there have been higher prices received for their products. There is still no confidence out there, and that confidence is a direct reflection of what they see coming from this Government. As I say, you just have to look around the dairy world to see how difficult it is for processors around the world, and yet in this Parliament, we do our damnedest to make sure that our dairy industry is on its knees just to meet certain Government ambitions.

So if the Government were truly wanting to help out the New Zealand agricultural sector, it wouldn’t be in legislation like this; they would be getting rid of some of the other legislation that’s coming that will actually affect farmers and put them in a very vulnerable position where, whether you’ve got a farm debt mediation bill or not, it’s going to make very little difference, because the Government regulations will force a lot of farmers to the wall. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to make a contribution in the committee stage of this wonderful bill, and I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor. Once again, it’s another example of this positive Government taking positive action and addressing the long-term issues and challenges that are facing our country, and in this instance, we are addressing the issue of the massive amount of debt which is saddled on our farmers and on our primary producers right across the board.

I want to take issue with Mr Bennett. I wish he would cheer up at times. It’s always as if the sky is falling and—you know, “Businesses are going under.” That’s not what the people of New Zealand want to hear, Mr Bennett. That’s definitely not what the primary sector want to hear.

Contrary to what Mr Bennett has said, this is a welcome piece of legislation, which provides a structured process—that’s all it does. It provides a process between creditors—the banks—and farmers to ensure that where that relationship may be getting close to an event of default where problems may be arising, there is a constructive process which is prescribed in legislation, which can help the parties, hopefully, come to discussions and resolution through mediation to perhaps address the issues, which will ensure the continued operation of the farming interests, or, likewise, it will also lead to a dignified exit, or a wind-down of activities.

One thing is for sure: this Parliament and no one can prescribe business success. That is the risk that businesses take when they take on debt. It’s a risk. It’s a risk, but there are thousands of primary producers up and down the country who have taken that risk and who are trying to do the best for their families and for their whānau to build that wealth base, to contribute to the GDP and to the growth of our economy, and so I acknowledge all those people, right across, who this bill is aimed at. This bill is a welcome mechanism that’s available to those that have debt and that may be getting into trouble to be able to work constructively with their banks through a mediation process and, ultimately, come to an agreed resolution. So this is a very welcome piece of legislation.

I want to acknowledge also the genesis of this bill through New Zealand First—Mark Patterson—and their advocacy in ensuring that this No. 2 bill is the right bill that we, as a House, can come together and pass.

I want to acknowledge the Primary Production Committee. It wasn’t as if the—I know; Mr Bennett, I do want to acknowledge the contributions that the National members made, but it was actually the combined parties within the Primary Production Committee who all contributed to this bill.

There were a lot of refinements that have been made. Whilst this bill has been modelled off a similar Australian piece of legislation from New South Wales, there are actually some really helpful tweaks that we, as a committee, were able to incorporate into this bill. I want to acknowledge the officials, who were very helpful, and we were quite a demanding committee in terms of what we wanted the officials to look at. I do want to acknowledge them for coming back to the committee with some very well-drafted solutions.

The main effect—to cut to the chase—is that we want to ensure that this is an accessible programme, but we also want to ensure that it can be accessed earlier in the process and that it’s not all dominated by the banks. So I commend this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to echo our Primary Production Committee chair’s comments and the support from the National Party for this Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). If I may just start with some comments in response to the contribution that I’ve just listened to from Rino Tirikatene, he said—and I quote—“You can’t prescribe business success in this House.” But I tell you what, you certainly can constrain it, and it is the National Party view that rural New Zealand, at the moment, is under one of the greatest collective onslaughts that they’ve had in a generation. This stuff can’t be washed away as immaterial, and it’s more than a little ironic that we sit and reflect on passing legislation that enables farm debt to be mediated between the creditors—which, in most cases, are the banks—and the farmers themselves.

I do acknowledge the genesis of this bill, Mark Patterson, but we certainly have thrashed it around a bit in the select committee and, I think, have got it to a sensible place. We can’t ignore the context in which we are debating it, which is a rural sector under significant pressure, and a banking sector that has signalled quite clearly that they wish to step back from the scale and quantum of rural debt that currently sits on their books. So this is very real. Farmers across the country listening to this tonight know it’s very real where they are. Because of the perspectives and vision and outlook that this Government brings to rural New Zealand, we’re debating water reforms, we’re debating costs with respect to climate change, particularly the emissions trading scheme. I appreciate that’s not the specifics of this bill, but it is a critical part of the context in which we are reflecting—

💬 Hon David Parker: Improved trade access, good prices, low interest rates, more realistic exchange rate.

—on this particular bill. So I’ve had an interruption from David Parker, which tends to happen, actually. He can’t help himself. I’m sure we’ll get it shortly from the Minister and he’ll tell everyone that once I used to work for Fonterra—seems to be his case every time he speaks. But if I go directly to the interjection that I’ve just had there from Minister Parker, he talks about the strength that exists in the sector with respect to returns and interest rates and, actually, climatic conditions, ironically. He’s right on those three points. We are at historically high returns from a farmer perspective. So isn’t that even more a reason to wonder at why the sentiment of the sector is at the lowest point for a generation? And the reason is the sum of the policies that his hand is part of the architecture of, which has created a huge amount of stress in farmers around the country, where they look at some of the outcomes that he expects in terms of water quality across the catchments of this country, and they can’t see a way to farm there. That stress is real, and it’s there every night and day.

This bill is going to come into effect for a number of those farmers who can’t see a way through. This bill is going to, no doubt, assist in some way to help a managed conversation between themselves and the banks who are looking to step back, because as they look at their risk profile aligned with the vision of this Government, rural debt is not something they want to be quite as exposed to as they were under the previous Government.

I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Mr Bennett. I think he has helped facilitate a very effective conversation of the select committee through this process. I do also want to acknowledge the officials. I think even the most partisan on the other side would accept that, actually, when the Primary Production Committee gets going, we are very focused on the detail at hand, as opposed to which party you might be coming from, which even surprises me at times. So I just want to acknowledge the work that they did.

There are a couple of areas that I would like to specifically highlight and ask for Minister Damien O’Connor to provide some feedback on. In Part 1, he has Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 409 that relates to a slight change with respect to the definition of “farmer”, which is somewhat ironic because we had quite a debate ourselves in terms of the definition of “farmer”. Initially, we had in the original bill, “means a person who is solely or principally engaged in a primary production operation”. After some significant debate internally, we changed that to “a person who is engaged in a primary production operation;”. The Minister has come back with an SOP that suggests that “primary production operation” changes to “primary production business”. Certainly, this side won’t have an issue with that, but I’d just like to understand the rationale that his officials gave to him for that change.

Moving on to Part 2, “Restrictions on [the] enforcement of farm debt”, particularly “Subpart 2—Mediation process”. I think it’s really important just to highlight the debate that we had over this. We have clause 14 in Subpart 2 now being very clear that a farmer may request mediation at any time. I think this is a very critical addition that we have brought to this legislation because, again, reflecting on the operating environment that our farmers are experiencing, the concern of the committee was as the bill was presented to us and we went through that select committee process, it still had a sense of being an opportunity, a pathway for mediation that was at the bottom of the cliff, as opposed to earlier on in the process. We thought it was absolutely important that we strengthened the opportunity for farmers, if they felt that their creditor situation was not where it needed to be, so that they had the ability to ask for mediation earlier in the process, as opposed to right at the end. Of course, we needed to augment that with some obligations on creditors to ensure that they just simply couldn’t say no. So we have clause 16A, “Creditor must have good reason to decline [mediation]”. Certainly from our perspective, we think that that’s a sensible change.

In terms of clause 21 of Part 2, “Costs of mediation”, again, we had quite a significant debate. The advice to us was that, you know, just sort of splitting it in half would work. That was underpinned on the Australian experience that had landed a particular price range and cost range for mediation. Again, we tested that as a committee. That wasn’t one side versus the other; we collectively tested that and agreed that, actually, where we have landed, which is “A farmer must not be required to pay more than $2,000 towards the costs and related expenses of the mediator.”, is a fair outcome. We did not want to create barriers for a farmer to participate in the mediation process. The whole point of this is to create a framework—an enabling framework—that earlier on rather than later on, farmers can engage with, and, hopefully, restructure their affairs in such a way that means that they can continue to sustain their business.

As outlined by Mr Bennett earlier, we have debated this thoroughly. We had a number of submissions. In good faith, we back-and-forthed it between ourselves and the officials. I think we’ve got a piece of legislation that is going to be useful for the New Zealand rural sector more widely, but, as Mr Bennett noted earlier, it doesn’t take away from the fact that we are debating this at a time when the context for rural New Zealand has never been more fraught in terms of sentiment and Government policy, despite the fact that they have tail winds in terms of market returns and interest rates. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a great pleasure for me to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in this committee stage of what has been a longstanding New Zealand First policy, and I do thank the members from across the House that have acknowledged that. Our interest in this legislation goes back to 1999, and I note that at stage there was $11.5 billion of rural debt. The context in which we’re debating this is now around $63 billion of rural debt, which is a material sum which is even identified by the Reserve Bank as a risk to our economy, should it go bad for whatever reason.

The wider context and, I guess, the predictable politics is that the Opposition will try to sheet this home to a particular set of policies, but as I say, this is a longstanding New Zealand First position. Actually, the context that we’re actually bringing this in is farming doing exceptionally well. We see Fonterra lifting its forward predictions for payouts in around that $7 region for next year, the lamb schedule sitting at $9 a kilo at the moment—unprecedented levels. I was talking to a farmer yesterday that had just sent his cull ewes off to the works. At $6.60 per kilo, he got $230 for some cull ewes. Just for those people that are not so familiar with farming, four or five years ago they may have been worth $50 or $60. So it is a material lift. And, of course, we’ve got generationally low interest rates.

So it is within that backdrop that we do bring this in. This is a pre-emptive measure. But when we look at things that can go a little bit pear-shaped, we don’t have to look too far back. The dairy payout was sitting in the middle part of this decade at around $8.50, and it plummeted to $4.50, putting absolute pressure on our farmers. Of course, this is the reason for this bill. So much of what we are dealing with here is outside of individual farmers’ control: Psa, M. bovis, drought, fires.

Of course, with the banks—the banks are putting the squeeze on, and we note that the banks have entered into this in good faith. They had preferred a voluntary code; we have decided to go with a formal code. But it’s not that long ago that we were dealing with the credit fault swaps scenario that did see the banks have to pay out compensation.

So this bill is to redress a power imbalance that exists between powerful multinational—in many cases—lenders and farmers who have got themselves into a degree of financial difficulty. The actual core of the bill is to bring a mediation step in there before farmers get to the bottom of the cliff. So within that, in addressing this power imbalance, we have this mediation bill come forward. The template is the New South Wales bill that has been so successful.

What I wish to bring to Minister Damien O’Connor’s, attention, and seek some clarity on, is around clause 57B, because I have, subsequent to the second reading, had some farmers contact me that had been through this process, and they were worried about clause 57B and the bank’s ability to seek an urgent court order through the High Court. Is the Minister satisfied that this won’t be used as a mechanism to circumvent the intention of this bill, which is to redress that power imbalance? So the bank, with unlimited resources, could just go to the High Court and seek this court order to bring forward, under urgency, a receivership. We know that the reason for that—and as outlined in the bill and as we went through in the Primary Production Committee—is that sometimes there are issues of animal welfare or sometimes there may be crops that need to be harvested to secure income for that year, and that’s a perfectly reasonable reason why the bank may need that mechanism, and that’s why we’ve put it in there as we went through the select committee. But there is some concern, that has been reflected back to me, that maybe the banks could use that as a bit of a “get out of jail” to circumvent the intent of this bill, which is to get mediation under way.

So just in my final seconds, I would actually like to commend the select committee. It was a really good process. I would commend the chairman who did conduct a very thorough cross-party examination of this bill, and I think we have tidied it up into a good space. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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.

We’ve heard tonight why this bill is needed. We’ve got a lot of debt now. It’s grown 270 percent, from $12 billion up to $62 billion, over the last 25 years. So you’ve got to figure out why that is—why has debt ballooned so much? It’s pretty simple: we had nine years of strong, stable National Government; a Government that actually backed farmers, a Government that said, “Hey, farmers, you’ve built New Zealand’s wealth, so we’re going to back you.”

Let’s have a look at National’s record. We introduced the first ever freshwater standards; the Greens-Labour Government had that option for nine years prior to 2008, they didn’t do that. So debt is now $62 billion because farmers actually had an understanding, they had the confidence to invest into their farms and into their business. They knew what was coming at them, unlike now.

We heard Minister Parker saying—while Todd Muller was speaking, Minister Parker interfered. He said, “We’ve got good prices. We’ve got good farm prices at the moment.” Well, why have we got the lowest farmer confidence in nearly 20 years? Why is that? What’s changed? Why have we got a protest on the West Coast on Sunday of 3,000 or 4,000 West Coasters—why is that? Why have we got a protest outside Parliament last Thursday, 50 Shades of Green, with about 150 really reasonable signs, but there were two unreasonable signs, but of course the Government said, “Those two unreasonable signs, that’s why we called those farmers rednecks.” What are they? They’ve come to complain to the Government around debt, and they call them rednecks. But if we want to talk about the debt, the debt on this bill is $62 billion, and that’s why we’re here.

Growth—let’s talk about growth in the economy. There were 12,000 new jobs when the National Party left office. What is it now? Have a guess. Have a guess—what is it roughly? Andrew Bayly, you’re a smart man. Have a guess. [Interruption] It’s 300—300 per month. So it’s declined significantly. The lowest unemployment rate just increased to 4.2 percent, yet 22,000 more people—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Walker, feel free to come back to the bill any time.

Yes, Madam Chair. I’m just talking about debt. If we talk about farm prices, farm prices in Southland have dropped. The prices being sold have dropped 22 percent, Mark Patterson—22 percent in the last year. Farm sales have dropped 10 percent. Now, what does this do to debt?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Please come back to the bill. Well, actually, please come to the bill.

Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m talking about debt now.

💬 Hon Member: He doesn’t know about the bill. He doesn’t know what it’s about.

This bill is about farm debt. So if we talk about farm sales that have dropped 22 percent, the debt has dropped. I actually phoned up a very knowledgeable man about this bill tonight, a man in Winton called Jim Grey. I said, “Jim, we’ve got this bill coming up.” He was a stock agent for 50 years. He’s seen many ups and downs over his time—50 years as a stock agent. He knows a lot about farm debt. He said to me he has never seen “so much policy coming farmers’ way”. That is why this bill is needed. He did say, on the other hand—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, I gave the member two warnings. He can resume his seat now. Thank you.

I actually had no intention of taking a call on this bill because up until now we had a consensus across the Primary Production Committee on this bill. As have many speakers mentioned tonight, farm debt is at an all-time high, and the power imbalance between the farming sector and the banking sector is evident for all to see. The question that has been posed at every stage of this debate is why has a bill like this not been introduced earlier? But this bill is addressing that power imbalance.

I feel bitterly disappointed—bitterly disappointed—that up until now the Primary Production Committee have worked together to improve this bill and yet here tonight in the committee of the whole House, they have used this bill as a platform to make cheap political points. We have Hamish Walker, without a shred of irony, saying that it is a good thing that the agricultural sector has $63 billion worth of debt. The name of this bill is the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2). The reason we are—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): And you have to say a little more than that about it.

Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You have to say a little more about the bill than just its name.

You’re dead right. As I was just saying mid-sentence, the reason this bill has been introduced, the Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2), is because there is an issue with addressing agricultural debt and the way in which banks have steamrolled over too many farmers. Yet Hamish Walker stands up and says debt is a good thing. The lack of irony in this debate is incredible.

We have heard throughout the select committee stage, and it was reflected in the second reading speeches many times, that submitter after submitter after submitter came to this Parliament and expressed many sad and regrettable stories of them losing their family farm because compulsory mediation was not part of the equation. That is what this bill seeks to address. I implore those at home, those that are listening in their car radios or those that are watching on TV or online: dismiss the speeches of the likes of David Bennett, who, I quote, says that “this bill actually won’t achieve much”.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Well, it won’t.

“Well, it won’t,” he says. He is the chair of the Primary Production Committee, and he stood up and said, “This bill will not achieve anything.”, and then when I repeat his quote, he repeats himself. “This bill will not achieve much,” he says. Well, vote against it. That is my challenge to that side of the House. Stop trying to play politics and having it both ways. If that side of the House do not believe that this bill will make a difference to farmers’ lives, stand up for what you believe in and vote against it instead of trying to play it both ways—trying to play politics when we are talking about people’s lives. This bill is designed to make it easier for people to look after their farms and to save their farms. I think of people like constituents in Wairarapa who’ve come into my office and told me how if mediation was part of the equation, they had a very good chance of keeping their farm. [Interruption] They chortle and they cheer and they jeer. That side of the House know that we are talking about people’s lives and people’s livelihoods, and they stand up and say that this bill does not matter, that this bill will not make a difference. What a disgrace. What an absolute disgrace.

There are people at home that have lost their farms, and the chair of the Primary Production Committee, and the agriculture spokesperson for the National Party, and the member for Clutha-Southland stand up and make a joke of this bill. It’s an absolute disgrace. The Farm Debt Mediation Bill (No 2) will make a big difference to people’s lives, it’ll make a big difference to people’s livelihoods, and I say shame on that side for making a joke of it. Standing up and saying this bill won’t make a difference—it shows how out of touch they are and it shows how keen they are to play politics over people’s livelihoods.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s important we respond to that speech because it’s just not true. This side of the House does care about farmers and their lives and their livelihoods, and that’s why we’re saying in this House that there shouldn’t be a Government putting all these restrictions and costs on to farmers. That is the reality of what is going on now. This Government is creating the problem. We have a situation where, as my colleague said, there is a massive decrease in the value of farms. That decrease in the value of farms can be directly sheeted home to the policy of that party—they stopped overseas investment and that took out the bottom of the market in the South Island, and now farms are dropping in price because there are no buyers for those properties.

I know, Madam Chair, that last speaker didn’t mention the bill once in his five-minute speech. He was enabled to speak for that period of time. He made a lot of innuendo and mistakes that need to be rectified in this House.

This party on this side is standing up for farmers. We are voting for this bill. We have said that it’s going to have little or no impact, and it won’t have much impact, but we will still vote for it because we stand up for farmers. If anybody really wanted to do anything for farmers, they would vote people like him out of this House, because they and their side are the ones that are creating all the problems for farmers. There’s a reason that member will never become an MP for Wairarapa: because it’s a farming seat, and farmers will never vote for him because they know he intends to kill them. That is his policy.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Look, everybody in this House knows that I’m up for a bit of banter and poking fun, but the suggestion that I intend to kill farmers is deeply offensive. I am utterly appalled by that suggestion, and I would ask that he withdraw and apologise for that suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): As chair of the Primary Production Committee that considered this bill, I do think it would be appropriate for you to withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, just before you carry on—I will give you the remainder of your time, despite my inclination—you did criticise my chairing—

No, I said—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Would you mind sitting down? Just chill out. You criticised my chairing by saying I hadn’t called Kieran McAnulty to account. I did, actually, ask him to refer to the bill. Then I interrupted him again and said it would take more than a reference to the name. Then he started talking about the bill, and I’d invite the member to do it as well.

Well, I don’t remember that member saying too much about the bill, but we have to respond to that kind of speech and say that the reality is that that party is causing the problems that farmers are facing now; whether it’s from water reform, to dairy, to this bill. This bill is not going to change the situation that farmers are in. And for the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party to come to this House and say they’re supportive parties that are really there in farmers’ best interests and that this bill shows how they’re in farmers’ best interests, is simply not true.

This bill is a bill that can assist farmers; there’s no doubt about it, but it will be very minor and very ineffectual. The reality is the pressure on farmers comes from the other legislation that farmers are facing, and they will hurt farming businesses, they will send farming businesses to the wall, and they will take farmers out of the farming communities, as we are seeing throughout this country through their policies. I stand behind my statements in this House.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 409 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.