Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. As others have said we regard this piece of legislation as helpful for our overall constitutional arrangements—the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill.I was actually very taken with the debate last night. I think that on all sides of the House thoughtful comments were made about the way that the legislation had been advanced through this House. The Attorney-General spoke about bringing other parties along in that journey and I think that's highly appropriate. In the Opposition we do let the Government know very clearly when we think they haven't done a good job of being consultative and so on but I think it's fair to give credit where it's due and say that actually that process—which has not been unduly rushed which has gone through the Privileges Committee in relation to how the House then responds to any such declarations—has been admirable. So we acknowledge and thank the Government for that.Others have mentioned the point about the institutions involved in the different branches of Government and obviously it's important that this place remains supreme in the sense of lawmaking but in the response to lawmaking where it is felt by the courts that there have been laws passed that are not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it's appropriate to have an opportunity for that dialogue to happen—or that conversation as it was characterised by Dr Duncan Webb—and I think that's a helpful way of looking at it considering that there is a view that can be expressed in the first instance actually by the Ministry of Justice giving advice to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General advising Parliament and Parliament is responding in the way that it sees fit which might actually be of course to pass legislation notwithstanding that there's inconsistency. And then per this bill we're confirming that the courts have the ability to make such declarations and committing as an institution that we will respond in some way.I did just want to offer some thoughts in my brief time available about the situation where Parliament decides that a law will be passed notwithstanding that the Attorney-General who is a legal officer advising that Government—so his or her own party let us remember who would have a Government-led majority maybe with other parties and any individual situation. I think it's worth reflecting on the fact that a Government that decides to pass a law notwithstanding that the Attorney-General has said that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is effectively deciding that the matter isn't inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the Government in that situation is saying Well notwithstanding the possible inconsistency we think this matter is important enough that it should pass into law anyway." which is not dissimilar to making an argument about justified limitations whereby we say "Well yes the right is being abrogated in some way but the policy justification is strong enough the threat that we're responding to"—whether it's a pandemic or earthquake to use a couple of examples—"is such that there is a proportional response and we're determined to do it anyway."So I feel less happy with the idea that this House should have to respond to a declaration of inconsistency by the courts when this House acknowledged in the first place that the Attorney-General had said that there was an inconsistency. On the other hand if it hasn't been picked up by anyone in this place that there is a potential inconsistency and the court brings it to the attention of Parliament and the executive then that seems to me a really clear case that there should be a second look. In any case we've decided and agreed—and I think with good faith on all sides—and acknowledged that starting point that Parliament is ultimately the lawmaker in the statutory way as opposed to a common law way and so I think that's helpful.One note of caution I suppose that I should offer in terms of our system of justice and therefore the rule of law generally is that because access to justice is so threatened at the moment—and this has been you know a longstanding issues and I don't mean to imply that it's been merely in the realm of the current Government; it's been a longstanding issue to be clear—if we're going to have access to lawmaking and agenda setting through the courts acknowledging that that's a highly expensive involved process that privileges those who have access to those resources and are articulate and so on that should give us pause for thought. Nevertheless the intent is good I think we've landed in the right place in terms of that conversation and so like others on this side of the House I commend the bill to the House."