Naylor JonoClauses 1 and 2JONO NAYLOR (National): I apologise Mr Chair. I am sorry for jumping the gun. I thought we were moving quickly on to this part. I do not want to take too long over this because obviously we have only a couple of clauses but actually when you look at the Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill—as I have already mentioned today on another bill—I think it can be tricky if the titles of our legislation are not understandable to somebody in terms of plain English. I think it was clearly outlined that there is not a lot of general understanding even around what a tort is. That was highlighted in the second reading speeches when I think I admitted to having not a lot of knowledge about it. I recall also the member David Clendon who was very frank in his own admission that he actually thought that perhaps a tort might be something that you would find in a German bakery. As tasty as that might be provided there was some sort of actionability in Germany that might make sense.I think it is really important that where we can we make the titles of our bills easily understood so that if any New Zealander picks up our statutes they can understand by looking at the title what it is that is trying to be addressed. I thought about that so Private International Law" in and of itself for the average person—if they looked at it they might simply look and say: "I didn't realise you could have your own private international laws. I thought international laws would be international laws and that laws are something that is public rather than private." So that could create a little bit of ambiguity. "(Choice of Law in Tort)"—again clearly even if you did understand what a tort was what does "(Choice of Law in Tort)" mean to the average punter?However having said all of that I did really have to think about it and ask whether it was worth the effort of trying to change the title. What would we actually change the title to? Unlike the previous bill that we discussed where I could think of a few alternatives I have struggled to come up with any other alternative for this particular bill. Given that the only people who are likely to engage with this legislation are in fact people in the legal profession it is highly likely that they will be able to understand what "Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Act"—as it will be then—actually refers to. So I guess in hindsight in having to explore whether or not this is the most appropriate title I think that ultimately it probably is. It will still enable the very good provisions within it to be actioned within New Zealand and also by those in the legal profession who are the ones who are most likely to engage with it.Obviously we had a bit of a change at the Justice and Electoral Committee around the time of commencement. Initially the first draft of the bill had it coming into force on the day after which it received the Royal assent. Now the phrase "15 days" has been put in there I guess ultimately to allow the legal profession to make any adjustments that it needs to. So I think ultimately clauses 1 and 2 are in perfect condition as they are and I am happy to support them."