SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Mr Woodhouse and myself were doing a polite dance and I appreciate that's he enabled me to take this first call. I think I'll just put some brief comments on record for the sake of the committee and then I'm happy to take questions. This bill responds to the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney-General v Taylor. In that decision the senior courts of New Zealand granted the first declaration of inconsistency to the effect that an Act unjustifiably breaches rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It took more than 30 years for the senior courts to grant the first declaration of inconsistency. The courts do not make such serious findings lightly and it is hoped that declarations will continue to be a rare occurrence. This bill answers the question of what should happen after the senior courts issue a declaration of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Currently there is no mechanism which ensures that the House or the executive will give serious public reconsideration to the legislation in light of the judicial comment. The absence of any response could mean any one of a range of things including that the House does not know about the court's declaration that it disagrees with or is unpersuaded by the court or that it does not know how to respond. This bill provides a process for a response to occur. By doing so the bill strengthens the protections of the rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Declarations of inconsistency can enhance the legitimacy of the system by making Parliament more accountable for meeting fundamental human-right norms. If Parliament makes a law that the senior courts considered to be inconsistent with the fundamental human rights affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it serves a useful public policy function to bring it to the attention of the public. Declarations of inconsistency can also provide a mechanism for bringing unintentional breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to the attention of Parliament. For example legislation enacted in good faith might later be found to be inconsistent with fundamental human rights when it is interpreted and applied in practice. In this way Parliament can benefit from the expert opinion of the judiciary and reconsider the law accordingly. At select committee the bill was introduced on 30 March 2020 and referred to the Privileges Committee. It was reported back on 30 September 2021. Submitters included individuals with significant expertise in constitutional and human-rights law and I thank them for the graciousness by which they afforded their excellence and analysis to our committee process. I thank also the Privileges Committee for its expert and diligent consideration of the bill and those members of the public as well. The changes made to the bill will create a stronger framework for the executive in this House to consider and respond to declarations of inconsistency and the issues that they raise. As introduced the bill required the Attorney-General to notify Parliament about a declaration of inconsistency six sitting days after the declaration becomes final. The bill amends both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act so that declarations about consistency of legislation with those Acts are treated in the same way. The bill as reported from the Privileges Committee now requires the Government to also respond to the declaration of inconsistency within six months of the declaration being brought to the attention of the House. This deadline can be varied by a resolution of the House. It may be desirable to extend the deadline if for instance a longer period is required to respond to a particular complex policy issue. The Government response must be presented to the House by the Minister responsible for the legislation to which a declaration of inconsistency relates. The notification by the Attorney-General to the House would also trigger a parliamentary process to be included in the House's Standing Orders. The process would include first a declaration of inconsistency being referred to a select committee allocated by the Clerk of the House the select committee considering and reporting on the declaration within four months and finally a debate in the House on the declaration the select committee report and the Government's response to the declaration. The process recommended by the committee provides a clear framework for the dialogue between the branches of Government to consider and respond to the declarations of inconsistency and the issues that they raise. The aim of the bill is to facilitate consideration of the judiciary's declaration of inconsistency by the legislative and executive branches of Government. It is important to note that the bill does not propose that either the legislative or executive branches be required to respond to a declaration of inconsistency in a particular way. Under our constitutional arrangement that is properly a matter for each branch of Government to determine on its own accord. With those remarks I am happy to take questions on the Parts that proceed through the House.