SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the clarification from the Minister. I beg the committee's indulgence because I think it's important to set out in the committee of the whole House what's going to happen and that's actually not part of the bill. So we're going to talk about something that isn't in the bill but I think is really important in our understanding of what we're doing here because one of the things the Privileges Committee had to consider was whether the procedures for this House should be set out in primary legislation and it fell very strongly on the side of No that's not appropriate." We are the architects of our own destiny in that regard and so the committee has determined that that be left to us. The Standing Orders Committee has already on a request from the Privileges Committee considered and recommended a draft—I don't know that it was in the select committee report but it will probably be found on the public record somewhere because it hasn't been passed yet; it will be after this bill is passed. It has set out in the appendix to advice from the Clerk a draft set of steps to be taken if there is a court or a Human Rights Review Tribunal declaration of inconsistency. And I think it's really important that we at least have a look at this as a committee so that we can understand what we're doing here.So firstly it is our prerogative—what we do and how we do it. I think that maintains that constitutional separation that's really important. It lays out the definition of an inconsistency which is pretty much what we're debating here and what the report of the Attorney-General means. Then we think it's material enough to be referred to a select committee for consideration. We do that with things like petitions inquiries briefings and the like. Reports of the Auditor-General and so on can be given a reasonably decent going over by a select committee and we think that's appropriate in these circumstances as well. We can set out policy options in the committee and recommend to the Government—because it's Parliament remember that's having a look at this not the Government—the committee's preferred policy option or options in that regard. We're not going to be able to take the politics out of that but I do have a great deal of faith in committees to be able to be the engine room of these considerations. And we're going to include the recommendations in respect of declarations.Now the executive is perfectly free not to follow that and I think we're going to be seeing in time as we did with the three strikes legislation and the prisoner sentencing legislation that a future Government decides that it doesn't want to do that. Equally a future Government might say it's a bit of an irritant but it's not a high legislative priority or the mood of the nation might change and say that actually three strikes legislation is the right thing to do. So any number of scenarios could exist for future Governments but it is this Parliament's responsibility to point these things out to the executive.The final thing is in respect of the six-month deadline. I think it's important to understand what the Privileges Committee considered in that regard. We can see a scenario where some of these things are going to be very straightforward and a committee can deal with it in reasonably good order but equally there may be very complex constitutional legal issues that are raised by the courts that will require more time and more input. An interim report I think was recommended and that may not be the end of it if it's in six months' time. I think it's appropriate that there is at least an interim report in that period. But I think the really important issue was that the committee considered that it was a prerogative of the House to determine how we deal with this not primary legislation and in that regard I've given the committee a long commentary on something that we're not actually debating the substance of. But I think it's really important to put on the record what that thinking was when we deliberated on the bill.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for providing that commentary. I think it's really important that the House does understand the deliberations that went into how this legislation got here today. So I do really want to thank him. I want to note the contribution from Professor Janet McLean Queen's Counsel who did make the recommendation to include reference to the House and as a consequence of the committee's process I absolutely concur with what the member has stated in this Chamber about the role the functions the separations and where those deliberations landed. So I just acknowledge him for that contribution.Part 2 agreed to."