Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. Very good and pertinent points raised by my colleague Barbara Kuriger. I want to focus again on the title and then I want to come back to the commencement.Earlier in this debate we discussed briefly—I was going to say at length" but it was actually quite a brief discussion—why the bill's name had been changed from its original conceptual name of the "Strategic Planning Bill" and then it got changed to being the "Spatial Planning Act". We had a little bit of a debate about that and the Minister answered some questions. But my further thinking on it given that the words "spatial" and "strategic" are not synonyms that are perfectly aligned—they do have different meanings different contexts different words—I'm wondering whether the Minister considered at any stage either she or her officials the possibility of perhaps changing the name of this piece of legislation to the "Spatial and Strategic Planning Bill". That would have then covered off both bases and actually been a kind of a compromise that would have potentially fulfilled both ambitions that are contained in the words "strategic" and also "spatial". The Minister I'm sure would maybe want to comment just briefly on that. The naming of legislation is quite important because it does send a tonal sort of cultural overarching perspective about what the legislation is supposed to be. It effectively is the name on the tin and if potentially we could have had the "Spatial and Strategic Planning Bill" maybe that would have been a way to allay the concerns of some people who felt that the change of name from "concept" to "implementation" has been one that's worthy of significant comment.I want to just pick up secondly in relation to the commencement—and I'm following up on a point that my colleague Stuart Smith made about the timing of this package of legislation—the suite of these two bills and the third one that we are yet to see is effectively a referendum. I want to cast the Minister in the chair's mind back to the original implementation of the Resource Management Act in the early 1990s. The reason I'm traversing that is because I think that that methodology could have been a template pathway for something similar in terms of the commencement of this legislation. Back in that day there was a Labour Government in power. Sir Geoffrey Palmer had done quite a lot of work in formulating the Resource Management Act that we know today. It had gone to a select committee there had been submissions it had come back to the House it had actually concluded a second reading and then all that was needed to pass that legislation was a third reading. It had got to that point but before a third reading took place an election—the 1990 election—intervened and there was a change of Government. Jim Bolger's Government came into Government. Jim Bolger appointed Simon Upton to be his Minister for the Environment. The bill was picked up by the new Parliament—the Bolger-led Parliament—and then sent back to select committee. It was quite an unusual process but it was a process that was effective and it straddled a political timing landscape that is not dissimilar to the one that we currently confront.So with that background and the second sending back to select committee I'm wondering whether the Minister had given consideration to a similar timing process that would have the potential to allow the next Parliament to have a look at this potentially make some tweaks some changes some modifications that would have allowed a process not dissimilar to that that occurred with the implementation and timing and commencement of the of the Resource Management Act that we currently have today. That resulted in effectively a cross-party bipartisan approach that gave I think a greater degree of certainty not only to citizens but also to officials who up and down the countryside will be looking at this commencement date. This is likely to be passed using the Government's—[Time expired]"