Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to take a call in relation to this title and commencement section of this debate—only the third part of the debate that we've been able to have on this bill. I think often the importance of the title and commencement debate is a little bit overlooked in this debating chamber but I think it is important to realise that the most read and considered part and the most influential part of a bill is always the title. So it's really important that we get it right.Hon Chris Bishop: The title? CAMILLA BELICH: Well yeah—it's the thing that's reported on. It's the most read part of the bill. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Most people—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Engage with the Chair please.CAMILLA BELICH: That's a helpful interjection Mr Chair—you know it'd be interesting if the Minister in the chair had a view on that. But I would think that statistically yes it is usually the most read part of the bill—the title. So it is important and it's really important that it reflects the content of the bill for that reason because it is so influential in guiding what the public sees as the content of the bill.We'll all be aware that waste management or waste minimisation in some contexts has been used to cover a myriad of different types of roles and types of activities that people in society have. Quite famously in fact waste management has been used in things like The Sopranos to cover things that were not actually waste management in terms of people's roles. So this bill has not an exact reflection on that particular situation—I wouldn't go anywhere near that far—but I would say that there are certain things within this bill which are not reflect in waste minimisation. So I support the amendment of my colleague Rachel Brooking to change the title to be more reflective of what it actually does.I have a few other suggestions as we haven't heard the Minister for the Environment's feedback on my colleague Rachel Brooking's suggestion. So I would like to ask the Minister: would she consider changing the title clause to This Act is the Waste Minimisation (Paying for Tax Cuts) Amendment Act"? Would she consider changing it to the "Waste Minimisation (Paying for Unspecified Projects in the Future) Amendment Act"? Would she consider changing it to the "Waste Minimisation (Increased Powers to the Minister) Amendment Act"? Will she consider a slight change to the title clause with a variation on what my colleague Rachel Brooking suggested: "This Act is the Waste Minimisation and Decrease in Environmental Spending Amendment Act"? All of these I think would give a much better flavour as to the exact changes that have been brought in by this bill.Of course we're aware that we have existing legislation in waste management. We're aware of that because the principle Act which is part of the clauses that we're debating at the moment is mentioned in this section in clause 3—the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. We've had a discussion in earlier parts on the history of how that came about so we know we have waste management legislation in New Zealand. So what are we getting here? What is new? I think the title could more aptly reflect what we are actually getting. So I'm interested to hear the Minister's comments on that. I know other members will have some contributions to make in terms of the commencement but my question is purely around the title."