Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you Madam Chair. For people who are watching at home on television or listening on their wirelesses we are in the final stages of what is known as the committee of the whole House analysis of this very substantial Natural and Built Environment Bill. It runs to over 900 pages and we spent quite a bit of time last week doing a clause by clause analysis. I have to say that I think it was a very useful discussion and debate.But as you have said Madam Chair we come now to what is a bit of a quirk of the parliamentary system and that is that the first clauses of a bill are the last clauses to be debated in the committee of the whole House. So we come to clause 1 which relates to the title of the bill. Clause 1 says This Act is the Natural and Built Environment Act 2022." So I am immediately compelled to ask the Minister for the Environment whether they are going to change that to 2023. So if he might like to answer that question that would be useful. Or is this indeed a piece of retrospective legislation that the bill is in place? I'm referring to Supplementary Order Paper 389 which I think is still the most current one that I have page 32. So if the Minister can just clarify for us what year he intends the bill to take effect and why it's listed as 2022 and not 2023. I'd appreciate his comments on that please.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm just checking with officials who are checking with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. But I think that was the date of the bill when it was being introduced and that's one of the drafting things that they just tidy up on the final print of the bill.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So is it the intention of the Minister for the Environment to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to correct the error in terms of the year that the bill is set out for in clause 1?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Parliamentary Counsel Office have confirmed that it isn't a mistake; it's the House style.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. So coming back to the title the "Act is the Natural and Built Environment Act". I wonder if the Minister for the Environment could give us some background and insight as to the history of the naming of the bill. We've heard at some length why a lot of the bill was put in place as a result of the Randerson committee's work but there were a number I think of alternative names for the bill suggested at various stages of the development of this legislation and I'm wondering if the Minister could give the committee of the whole House a little bit of a potted history as to how we've come to this title what its genesis was and what the rationale for it is in terms of the wording of the bill.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It's not a loaded name. It's not like Operation Enduring Freedom or some of the loaded names to programmes that some other jurisdictions use. The custom in New Zealand is that legislative titles are generally descriptive of the content of the bill soon to be Act. This at different stages was the "Natural and Built Environments"—plural—"Act" but having regards to the definitions of "environment" as including both the natural and built environment in the definitions clause there was a drafting change at the Environment Committee to the singular.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. The power of the select committee never ceases to amaze—that we could go from the plural to the singular!I meant to say in the first call that I took when I was giving a little bit of an introduction as to where we are at with this bill that here in the National Party on this side of the House we oppose this legislation in its entirety. It is our intention should we have the opportunity and privilege of leading a new Government in October later this year that we will repeal this legislation in its entirety before Christmas.Hon Eugenie Sage: And replace with what?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: And then we will replace it with some reasonable and workable legislation that doesn't have the same kind of hiccups and problems that this bill does.I want to come back Madam Chair because I know you will want me to to debating clause 1 which is the title of the bill. Now at the Environment Committee there was only one submission on the title and the submission proposed that the title of the bill should be the Natural and Built Environments Planning Act". I'm keen to ask the Minister why that suggestion wasn't taken up and what his objection to that suggestion from the submitter was.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Environment Committee didn't believe it was necessary and neither do I."