Andersen Ginny; Salesa JennyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I really enjoy these debates. It's quite good to have these robust discussions on how those healthy tensions between executive judiciary and legislature work in practice. I think this bill which responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney-General v Taylor is a great example of how we can improve that transparency which is so vital within our democracy.In that decision I mentioned the Supreme Court determined that senior courts have the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Supreme Court's decision raised the question of what should happen after senior courts issue a declaration of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Currently there is no mechanism which gives that surety that ensures the executive—or the House for that matter—will give serious public reconsideration to the legislation in light of that judicial comment.So this bill provides a pathway forward. It provides a process for that reconsideration to occur. By doing so the bill strengthens the protections that already exist in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also those freedoms within there.I think that it's important to note that there is already a process in place for declarations of inconsistency made by the Human Rights Review Tribunal and this bill also amends the Human Rights Act to align this process with the process for responding to senior courts' declarations. I think it's important to note that when we see senior courts making a declaration of inconsistency there is just no process for bringing that declaration to the attention of the House of Representatives to have debates such as the one we're having now. This means that lawmakers might not have the ability to fully consider and give attention to the declaration and the breaches of rights may potentially not be addressed. So clearing up that inconsistency and providing a clear pathway forward is important.The very purpose of this bill is to provide a process for Government and the House of Representatives to consider and if we think fit to respond to a declaration of inconsistency made by the senior courts or even the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has been able to issue these declarations since 2001 but only in respect of the right to be free from discrimination. When the Human Rights Review Tribunal makes a declaration of inconsistency in this space the Government is required to respond to that within a 120-day period.Look I'll leave it there but I'd just like to note that there are some changes in there. One I think of interest worth pointing out is that changes have also been recommended to the Standing Orders to provide for a parliamentary process that follows once the Attorney-General has been notified of a declaration of inconsistency which includes a select committee referral.To conclude today ensuring declarations of inconsistency are brought to the attention of this House will promote greater transparency and it will also encourage more active consideration of potential inconsistencies therefore strengthening the democracy we have here in New Zealand. I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member can I just remind members that when we have a hybrid House when there are loud conversations it actually interferes with those who are trying to hear on the Zoom.