Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well I rise on behalf of ACT and as a member of the Privileges Committee that considered this New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill to support the third reading and the passage of this bill and also to support the proposals that this House which cannot be subject to legislation should amend its own rules. Both of these courses of action are designed in order that the declarations of inconsistency which are sometimes made by the court have a place to go have a process to receive them here in Parliament. Those declarations occur when a court decides or the Supreme Court finds that this Parliament in making a law or this Government has wandered away has violated the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has done something that is not consistent with a free and democratic society or at least not a tolerable breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in a free and democratic society. This all takes place in the context of a very young nation.It strikes me that our country if you take its foundation as 1840 is really only a couple of lifetimes old not much more. It's also a very small nation; 5 million people could fit into dozens if not hundreds of cities around the world. That has led us to have one of the most anaemic constitutional setups of any country on Earth. If you think about it most countries have some combination of a written constitution of an Upper House of states or provinces sub-national governments. We are alone in the world almost having a single Parliament a unicameral House just one layer that if you have a majority you can theoretically do anything. It's a winner-takes-all approach to democracy that is an outlier in the world's democratic systems.Hon David Parker: Moderated by MMP.DAVID SEYMOUR: Somebody muffled—can you say that again David Parker?Hon David Parker: Somewhat modified by MMP.DAVID SEYMOUR: He said Somewhat modified by MMP." Well he's right about that but as his former colleague Gaurav Sharma might say "I'm not sure if that's working as well as intended tonight."! I didn't expect to get heckled on this particular bill I have to say but you know that's how the member wants to play.Look this constitutional anaemia that we have means that we have some of the most erratic lawmaking. Our policy is generally good on average but it also changes more rapidly than we would expect than other parts of the world. That I think is a real problem for people who are trying to invest who are trying to plan their futures and who are trying to make the most of their lives because they can't be sure when this Parliament that is so powerful and so unrestrained by any constitution or Upper House or sub-national government can change the rules of the game so rapidly. In that context I think anything that develops some basic rights of citizens is a very welcome development. Of course our young small nation is gradually evolving those restraints.The case of Taylor v Attorney-General just four years ago found that actually yes the Supreme Court can say to Parliament "Sorry you got it wrong." The question is: once that happens what happens next? That's a question that needed to be resolved. I think our Attorney-General David Parker and before him actually Andrew Little have done a really really good job. They have shown Parliament how constitutional change and important legal stuff should be done taking this bill around the House taking it to select committee and getting the kind of consensus that allows all people to put aside political differences and say "Yes this is how our constitutional arrangements should be in New Zealand." So I commend the Minister for the way that he has gone about making these changes. I only wish he'd go and talk to Kiritapu Allan about her current electoral law changes and suggest a similar level of comity and consensus might be found around them rather than put through under a shortened select committee process towards the end of this year.I think the process that has been arrived at is absolutely the right one because it's been arrived at with a very delicate navigation of parliamentary sovereignty but also accepting the reality that the courts have a role to play that Parliament doesn't always get it right and that there does have to be an acknowledgment and a process where Parliament itself can work through what some might view as its own mistakes. That procedure is very straightforward and on the face of it it's not a particularly long bill. Sometimes the best bills are short. It's the old saying: I was going to write you a short letter but I didn't have the time. This piece of legislation says that if there is a declaration of inconsistency at the court then the Government has to respond and it has six months to do so. But there's a parallel process where the Attorney-General has to inform Parliament that the declaration has occurred. Having been informed by the Attorney-General the set of rule changes that are not in the legislation but are also being debated tonight will be introduced to Parliament such that this Parliament must then send the declaration—not the Attorney-General's report but the declaration from the court—to an appropriate select committee. And the Clerk who sits just in front of the Speaker must choose which select committee to go to. That select committee then has four months to consider this declaration. It can of course call witnesses. It's the master of its own destiny. It can get advice it can consult the public it can debate amongst its members but after those four months it must come back to the House and the rules say that the House should have a debate on the declaration.The net result of this is that we haven't undermined in any way the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament remains supreme. Parliament is quite entitled to ignore the declaration have the debate and carry on as it was. But what we have done is ensured that when a court issues a declaration that Parliament has breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act then there's a proper open democratic forum for that to be debated. That is a wonderful addition to our constitutional framework. It means that people's concerns get ventilated in a democratic fashion. But it also solves what could have been a growing constitutional problem of a stand-off between two branches of Government because without this we could have ended up with the courts frequently telling Parliament that they got it wrong and Parliament being completely aloof to the courts. I don't like annoying judges because you never know when you might end up before one. So I think it's a very positive thing that we've found a way for Parliament to accept what judges and courts say acknowledge it give the public an opportunity to be part of ventilating an issue that's arisen in the courts and then ultimately as the people who are actually elected in a democracy make a decision about what to do about that in a fulsome open and transparent way. So for all those reasons and the context of our small young nation gradually finding its way from anaemic constitutional beginnings to something more sophisticated more democratic and that is better at upholding people's basic rights and freedoms I think that what's happening tonight is an extremely positive development and we should all be very proud to be supporting this. We should all be very thankful for the way that our current and previous Attorneys-General have worked to shepherd this through the House and other members and those public submitters that came to the Privileges Committee have contributed too. Without any more from me I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Madam Speaker."