Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): So taking that response into consideration we would have to make an amendment to the original Act in order to change that verbosity that is creeping into our legislation. So I don't know whether that would be outside the scope of the bill because that may turn it into an omnibus bill because we are not only—no actually we are amending the original Act so we could pass an amendment. We could have passed an amendment in previous parts to do it but not in this part—so I get where that's going. Thank you for the clarification on that one.Just on the commencement clause—and look I don't want to take too much time on this because I know we've had a history in the House of spending a lot of time on titles and commencements and people use it to drag it out and talk about the history of the bill and this particular word and title. What's the definition of child"? What's the definition of "overseas"? I know the committee doesn't have much time for that and I'd be hesitant about setting a precedent about dragging it on too much because we wouldn't want that that to go on in the future—you know being able to speak endlessly about titles and commencements.Arena Williams: Point of order Mr Chair. Speaking to Speakers' rulings 127/3 and 127/4 given that Government members are making contributions about rejecting the title of this clause those are out of order because you've already heard from Government members that they intend to support this bill. But if this clause was voted against by the Government members it would fail. So we are hearing here from Government members about a rejection of the title clause which would make this entire thing farcical or more farcical than it already is.Hon Member: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you—let me just speak to this point of order. I'm just reading here the Speakers' rulings that you just referred to and it refers to "The rejection of a title of a bill by a committee of the whole House"—I haven't heard a rejection from the member.JAMES MEAGER: Mr Chair I won't take a point of order on that because I think you're obviously correct. There's no question that we're not going to support the excellent bill by the member Greg O'Connor. The question was whether or not there's an opportunity based on the feedback from the member to put an amendment to the House and change the title of the bill. Now the member's quite clearly illustrated why that might not be appropriate on this occasion and I was about to go on and say about how we don't want to talk at length ad infinitum about the title and commencement clause because we don't want to set a precedent of dragging it on forever.So the only thing I really wanted to say in the remaining sort of couple of minutes of this debate is that it is important to get some good reasons from officials as to why we don't have a commencement date coming in the day after Royal assent. I mean it is quite typical these days to give agencies a significant amount of time for implementation. One question might be: why was the three-month balance reached? Why wasn't it six months? Actually I think there's probably some reasonable arguments from officials during the select committee stage that a longer time to implement this might have been better based on some of the other priorities that they might have at the moment. I'm not saying that this kind of enforcement of this action is low priority but there are always questions about why we pick three months why it isn't just the day after why it takes the full three months for officials to get the systems in place. So I think a response of "Yep they need some time to get it in place and this seems fine" is OK but I just wanted to put it on record that we do need to know sometimes why we want to delay the implementation of the law.This bill was introduced in 2022 by the member so we don't want to wait for a moment longer than we need to get this very good piece of legislation out of the House and on the streets—you know out behind the desk and on the streets keeping our citizens safe. The sooner we can get this piece of law into force the better. So the justification for why we need to wait another three months after Royal assent I think is worth asking about. Beyond that I actually agree with members opposite that you know we may want to keep these title and commencement cause debates relatively tight here and into the future."