Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will help you out then. For goods such as cattle, the title passes with the payment for the goods, which is generally underwritten by the stock and station agent. However, with the passage of wheat you become an unsecured creditor, so the farmer is an unsecured creditor for the product. It is intrinsically different. So to put the proposition that the law that you use to claim recourse for nonpayment for such items as cattle and sheep is the same law that you use to claim recourse for the nonpayment for such items as wheat is intrinsically wrong. With one you can redeem your property and with the other one you stand in line as an unsecured creditor. Do you believe that to be the case or not?