Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I wish to take a brief call on the title and the commencement. First of all a number of titles have been suggested but actually in the Minister's own words the reason for this bill is to ban foreign housebuyers so it should actually be called the Ban Foreign Housebuyer Bill" in my view. I think that more aptly describes what this bill seeks to do. Having sat on the select committee from the beginning it soon became apparent that there were all sorts of other things caught up in this complicated bill which have since been amended—many of them have—and we've even seen amendments submitted this evening on the regulating side of the bill.I think what I really want to talk to though is the more substantive part about the commencement date. When we started this decision-making process and this bill was introduced to the House it was done with some urgency by this Government because this Government had found a way it said to deal with the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) negotiations and it had found a way of carving out its concern about foreign housebuyers and bringing it through this House. That was done with some urgency including a very limited time for submissions and including a rather rushed process which was then amended a number of times.So I come to the point which is around the commencement date. As my learned friend Mr Bayly has just said the commencement date provisions are quite complicated and I'm actually asking the Minister to explain to the committee why those commencement date scenarios are listed in the way they are. If this Government is so keen on bringing this bill through despite widespread opposition from submitters—as Mr Walker has just said—and despite opposition from this side of the committee why does the Minister not simply have a simple clause that said "10 days after Royal assent" or something to that effect? I genuinely don't understand Minister the reason for that and why that might benefit New Zealand; the reason as to why you have brought in a series of provisions that can be brought in over different times as opposed to what is normally a very simple clause.So I think the name needs to better represent both exactly what this bill seeks to do and what politically motivated this coalition Government to bring in a piece of legislation like this. Then more simply at the end if you are so keen about doing it and it was part of your election manifesto why don't you bring it in as quickly as you possibly can through this parliamentary process? Now if there are things about the CPTPP that we don't understand that require these provisions to be put in I encourage the Minister to take a call and tell this Parliament why that is the case. It's not obvious to me and it wasn't obvious to my colleague Mr Bayly who questioned it.I actually think this House deserves to know what the complexity is that means that parts of this bill will come in at certain times to be determined by Order in Council at some future time when actually when we started this process it was a mad rush it needed to be done as soon as possible and it was one of the top 100-day priorities of this Government. It then became more complicated and more submissions brought in a whole lot of other issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee worked hard on over a significantly compressed time frame.So I actually ask the Minister as we come to the end of this debating round could he explain to the committee and the members here why the commencement date is as it is and why it needs to be like that when it could actually simply say what is traditionally the case which is that it comes in 10 days after gaining Royal assent? Thank you Mr Chair."