O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I am appreciating the time that we are considering this bill. Looking back on how long it has taken this bill to come to the Committee I think it has even outlasted our former leader who has moved on—and the legislation is still around—who was the spokesperson and who I think put a lot of good wisdom into the whole process.But in relation to clause 2 Commencement" I am just trying to think back to a piece of legislation that I have spoken on that is basically open slather on or no clear indication of when it will be implemented. In relation to the three subclauses to clause 2 I have got three questions: when why and what?The first question is in relation to subclause (1) "… on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council." which is without any clear idea of when that might be. The Minister might want to take a call and give the Committee and I guess the many many thousands of people who will be watching this debate some idea of when this might come into play. It is a substantive piece of legislation. It is about their property rights. Every Kiwi who has a bit of property or an interest in property should be interested that we are doing the right thing here but what we are not able to say is actually when this is going to come into effect.In relation to subclause (2) of clause 2: "One or more orders may be made under subsection (1)"—that is the first part—"bringing different provisions into force on different dates." So the point made by my colleague Michael Wood is quite right. We have no idea when the Government might choose to bring these things into play. In fact in the transfer or the security—which I was referring to in my earlier speech—we have no idea when that might come into play or when that might offer the support security and certainty to New Zealanders because there is so much leeway in subclause (2) here.So firstly we do not know when any of it might be brought into play; then we are told that actually they can basically choose to bring in parts of it whenever they like. Then subclause (3) states: "Any provision that has not earlier been brought into force comes into force on the day that is …" 12 months here but with Minister Upston's Supplementary Order Paper 252 we understand that it will go out to 18 months. The question I ask is given the flexibility in the first two subclauses why are we then asking for another 18 months for other parts that we do not know about? That is the "what". So subclause (1) is the "when"—we want to know when they will bring it in. Why would you then have different parts of it on different dates? And thirdly what are you going to leave out that will then take 18 months not 12 months as originally proposed to bring into law?I think it is a little remiss of Parliament of the Committee here tonight to hand over to the Government such an important piece of legislation and then say: "Well you can bring it in when you like and you can mix it up however you want and then if you want to leave things out you can for up to 18 months." What kind of mess will that leave for Landonline or for lawyers or people involved in conveyancing? How will they know what part of the law is in place at what time?I think those three questions are legitimate. It would be great to hear the Minister clarify those before this Committee finally says yes to move a piece of legislation forward that is so important but so confusing even in clause 2. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposition as pointed out by Michael Wood and backed up by myself that we get clarity on when clause 2(1) might come into force why we should then leave different parts of it out and what would be delayed for up to 18 months which is an amendment by Minister Upston at the last minute from the 12-month period originally proposed in the piece of legislation."