Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. As the House will have heard National and Labour are substantially in agreement on this matter and our colleague Arena Williams is correct to describe the bill itself as straightforward. There are some incredibly gnarly issues of a constitutional nature however relating to fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) and also the relationship between Parliament and the courts.I like others on this side of the House or at least the National part of the House have agreed to support the Government's intention to move quickly on this legislation so I don't intend to take longer than necessary to air what I think are some pretty important principles whether that's in this the first reading or beyond. And we do appreciate the need for quick lawmaking in this case for the reasons that the Minister of Justice and others have explained.I mean there's a certain irony of course in having to rush through a parliamentary process on the basis that the courts may very quickly decide something because of course our court system is horrendously slow in almost every other respect. But nevertheless there is a risk of an unintended consequence certainly from the parliamentary perspective if not the judicial perspective of the case of G v Commissioner of Police. So it's important we act quickly.The history even of this bill is quite complex and I was interested to read not only the report of the current Attorney-General but also that back in 2015 of the Hon Christopher Finlayson KC. I think it's worth stepping through those and I don't think that they are substantially in disagreement although the conclusions that are reached by the current Attorney-General are interesting in a deference that I think is shown towards the courts that leaves me not entirely comfortable.So back in 2015 Christopher Finlayson decided that there was no double jeopardy imposed by that law that was being passed in response to the 501 issue as we might call it because the imposition of the regime was not punitive in nature. This is a slightly different point from that made by the Minister just now and I think she makes a good point that the equivalent regime imposed here would have been imposed in Australia for that offence committed in Australia or conversely an offence committed in New Zealand would have also attached to the administrative conditions in New Zealand. So either way it comes to the same thing. So far so good. I think I'm right in saying that Mr Finlayson's report didn't touch on the aspect of retrospectivity because for the same reason as the double jeopardy point there isn't actually a punitive element. There isn't actually a punishment that looks backwards or is repeated because in fact it's not a punishment but the imposition of conditions that are either characterised as part of the original punishment as the Minister would have it or are of a nature of reintegrating and rehabilitating the offender himself or herself.Just to complicate matters the Attorney-General then did nevertheless conclude that the NZBORA protection against unreasonable search and seizure was offended because that leaned on provisions of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill which he had determined was itself inconsistent with the NZBORA at least to some extent.So that's the history from an Attorney-General report perspective. In reading that of the Hon David Parker today—which is the first opportunity that I've had to look at it in this process which has been rushed albeit understandably—I see that Mr Parker agrees I think I can summarise with the conclusion that had been reached by Mr Finlayson but says nevertheless because the High Court found that there was ambiguity in relation to the law that it was necessary to defer to the courts and to say that the current law is ambiguous in fact. This is really troubling because I think that means that if we are to say that the Attorney-General report must defer to the authority of the court on matters of law not merely stating what the law actually is but also that that must imply that we in Parliament and the Attorney-General himself must therefore reach the same conclusion of consistency with the NZBORA. That seems to me to substitute the judgment of the courts for Parliament and this is not a matter of law so much as lawmaking. Of course it's as legislators that we address each other in the House on behalf of New Zealand and so I think the lines are getting considerably blurred.The real irony in this to me is that of course in our determination that we should take seriously pronouncements on NZBORA matters from the courts to the point that we are obliged to respond to them on every occasion of such a declaration actually we're going to end up with this current bill saying at new section 3B inserted by clause 4 that the Act's provisions will override any inconsistent other law. So actually we're going to say at the end of all this it's not going to be justiciable to actually consider whether this amended Act is actually consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not. So we've gone backwards and I think I'm not unhappy with that just quietly. I think that's a more sensible position for us to return but it is highly unusual as I think I heard my colleague and friend the Hon Michael Woodhouse reflect.So it is highly unusual. It's a very funny way that we have you know ended up having to make a law in this case. As we've said already on this side of the House we don't disagree with the Government's approach in policy terms. We think it's appropriate to do so quickly—indeed necessary—and for those reasons we will support it not only in terms of the bill itself but also as to process regrettable as that is. Dr Dean Knight often implores Parliament to allow prospective new laws to breathe. This has been a breathless process but nevertheless we will act in good faith to make it as sensible a consideration of complex matters as we can manage. For that reason I look forward to the rest of the debate at this and subsequent stages.