Meager James; O'Connor GregJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you for that clarification from the member that it is only applying to travel taking place after the amendment so the retrospectivity doesn't apply to travel which took place before the amendment Act. The registration may have occurred beforehand but if the travel occurred beforehand we're not retrospectively going to go back and ask for information about where they had been or intended to go. No that's very clear thank you.I wanted to raise a point in and under clause 13—that's the interpretation section; it's the commencement clause. It's an important one for me to raise I think because it says commencement means the commencement of the amendment Act" which is actually very clear. Part of the issue we get when we have amended a piece of primary legislation for the fourth time is that we can start running into definitional issues. We can start referring to acts and amendment acts and bills and all sorts of things. So having that in the interpretation section is actually quite clear that's actually pretty helpful. I wanted to draw members' attention—and this is something that I got tripped up on quite a few times in my past as someone who looked at legislation for a living and had a pretty moderate attempt at interpreting it for a billable rate; that is that when you're looking at a bill you're seeing that the bolded text in the bill refers to amendment Act 2021. Those are the parts of the bill which will be changed administratively later on. So just for any new members around the Chamber—I have been caught up with that before and I certainly wouldn't want them to be jumping up to their feet leaping up and saying "there's an error in the bill! We have to change it to 2024". Actually it is relevant because one of the amendments that's been made to this bill was made under urgency in 2017 because I think an actual date in the bill was incorrectly drafted when it went through. The bill was passed; it wasn't picked up. Then only several months later did the bill have to reappear before the House to change a very very minor provision. So I think that's very important for members to take notice of when we're talking about the actual drafting of the legislation at the committee of the whole House stage. We can never lose sight that this is one of the most important stages that we go through in the House. It's the final chance really for the House to make amendments. In the old days we'd go for a clause-by-clause analysis; we'd really get down to the commas and the semicolons and the periods and the full stops. I don't use semicolons because I don't know what they're for so I avoid them like the plague—Simon Court: —You'll want to—you'll want to. JAMES MEAGER: I'll want to at some point says Simon Court. He's the expert in drafting—I'll ask him. But no I appreciate the clarifications. That was all I really wanted to highlight from that particular part of the clause. I guess I'll leave remaining contributions for other members to jump up and have a good crack at this part as well before we move on to title and commencement.GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Mr Chair I think I'm hearing a good argument to keep lawyers out of the whole thing. That's just my interpretation. Part 2 agreed to.Schedule agreed to."