Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I do want to take a call on clauses 1 and 2 in terms of the title and commencement date following on from my colleagues. I guess I want to suggest given the debate around this particular bill around the concerns that I have expressed in several contributions in this debate—and that is on behalf of my constituents around Māori land owners in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.The question is: is this bill better titled The Real Te Ture Whenua"? Is it better titled "The Real Te Ture Whenua Bill"? The reason why I say that is that we are changing Māori land law but we have no details particularly around the critical issue of the Māori Land Service. We have debated this particular bill particularly Part 2 that introduced the role of the register and its roles and responsibilities which is what Māori land owners are waiting for with bated breath in terms of Te Ture Whenua. I say that because maybe the answer—and we did ask the Minister in the chair at the time but unfortunately there was a change. I was looking forward to that particular Minister getting up and clarifying for us around the registration that we debated in this particular bill and those that I mentioned in terms of Te Ture Whenua. So getting back to the title there is a title that may be more appropriate for this bill. It is fresh it is innovative it reflects our bicultural nature in this country—or it may clarify exactly how Māori land owners are going to have their land managed going forward under this National Government. So there is a suggestion. Another suggestion around the title could be I do not know "Aotearoa Whenua Transfer Bill." That could be another way to modernise the state of the country that we are in in 2017 and going forward.In terms of the commencement date I do want to pick up the comment and add to the question around why 18 months. You have heard several members on this side of the Chamber make the comparison between this bill and Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill and the 18 months' commencement date is absolutely the same in Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. The question I too want to ask alongside my colleague Damien O'Connor is why the delay? What is happening with this Government and why are we not going to implement or commence this particular bill that we are debating according to clause 2 for 18 months once we have passed this through? I have not heard the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse. Maybe he could enlighten us as to why 18 months—why that is. We have not heard any contribution from the National benches as to why that may be the case during the whole debate on this bill but I do want to ask the Minister in the chair whether he could help alleviate some of the concerns I have had around that 18-month period like my colleague and also around the connection I have made from the title around the Land Transfer Bill to Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. I think it is more important that we get a modern title that reflects like I said earlier the bicultural nature that we have in New Zealand and the role that Māori whenua plays in this country alongside the general title the Torrens system that we have just debated in this bill. I think it is time to get a fresh approach. Clearly the Minister because he has not risen to his feet—maybe that is a sign of agreement with what we are suggesting around a more modern and more fresh title. I commend this bill to the Committee.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently."