Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's my pleasure to speak on behalf of the National Party on this legislation that we are supporting: the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. First up I agree with the Minister who has just spoken David Parker who said that going back into the history of this when there was a proposal for the ability for senior courts in New Zealand to strike out legislation as the US Supreme Court does which breaches the constitution there and it would have breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act here that would have been a step too far. I agree that no system is perfect. If you look around the world there are many imperfections with our democracy as there are with the British democracy and other places all around the world but the politicisation of the courts which is an inevitable consequence of that power I don't think would be helpful and would fundamentally change the nature of how things work in this country.I agree with the Minister it's far better when you're trying to balance various rights because quite often rights can sometimes be conflicting and to work your way through that—it's appropriate for elected representatives to do that. As the Minister said if they get the judgments wrong or the public doesn't agree with them they get thrown out and that's how the system works. I for one think we should do that on a regular basis every three years rather than four. And only because I just don't think in a system that doesn't have so many checks and balances doesn't have an Upper House and other issues—I think there's a good argument for reasonably regular opportunities for the population to have their say but that's another matter for another day. So the proposal here is—my sense and why we support it is it just lifts up a notch the level of gravity and consequence for when Parliament decides that it will press ahead with legislation that may be close to the wind or arguably breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and Parliament does that on numerous occasions for good reasons. But if the court finds that it has in its opinion breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act this sets up a mechanism where we have to take that seriously and actually come back to the House not in any flippant way and just say Well tough luck. That's what we're doing and good luck to you." Instead we set up a process and actually have to confront that. The Government of the day has to lay out a clear case as to why they think it is justified. And then if the court says it clearly breaches these rights and asks "Is that breach justified?" it may come to the conclusion that it doesn't think it is justified and the House might say "Well sorry we do think it is justified." Ultimately I think that's appropriate in the system that we have and if the people don't agree like I say it will be thrown out. So I think that's important. I suppose the only point I would make in relation to the broad issue is that this is a contested area and these matters are contested. I can think of three recent examples where these issues have been raised—one has been with the three-strikes legislation which the National Government passed and many people were not happy with elements of that and in particular with the disproportionate sentences that arose from it and from my point of view that was the purpose of the legislation that they would be disproportionate but others certainly thought they were grossly disproportionate. So there was an argument where there was a difference of opinion there and Parliament pressed ahead and now it has been repealed by another Government and I suppose that's how the system should work. The other two examples have been in relation to local bills: the Rotorua bill and the Canterbury bill. The only point I'd make there is I just do hope that we'll have I suppose some consistency in those areas. We've had the Ministry of Justice say the Rotorua bill—which moved away from the principle and the Minister spoke of strong conventions in our democracy and I think one of the strong conventions in our democracy is that every person should have an equal vote in the system and their vote should carry equal weight. This Government is moving away from that by supporting—it didn't support the Rotorua bill because the Ministry of Justice advised the Attorney-General that it did breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it wasn't justified. But then very strangely when it came to the Canterbury bill which does a similar thing at the Canterbury Regional Council breaching the equal voting rights there we got a very different view from the Ministry of Justice saying "Well yes it did breach the Human Rights Act but it's justified by the Treaty." and there was no strong or clear argument put forward. I have every confidence that the court if it does start coming and making opinions here that they'll do a better job frankly than what we've seen from the Ministry of Justice in the last few months in relation to those two bills where the advice has been on the surface rather contrary.But that aside I still think the fundamental point of this bill—which is ensuring that Parliament having kept for itself the ability to pass laws and not have them struck down by the courts in that relation which is an assertion of parliamentary supremacy when it comes to lawmaking. Having done that I don't think it is unreasonable if the courts were to declare that it was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to go through a process such as outlined in this bill where the Parliament has to stand up own it justify it or if they're of a mind to change it. But they can't just shrug it off and ignore it. I think that's appropriate. On that basis we support this bill."