Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for her contribution. As she's noted the tone has been constructive—if I can put that word in her mouth—and in turn I want to acknowledge that she has engaged with other parties across the House in the spirit of good faith to allow as much discussion and ventilation of the issues as possible in the circumstances. So I think that's positive if I may say. I think it's worth stating for the record that the person known as G in the particular court action that sparked this case will not be affected by the action of this Parliament. So we're not denying that person their day in court or the fruit of their litigation if it should go well for them because that's specifically an exception inserted at Part 4 of Schedule 1 of the Act as it will be amended. The only additional comment I would make to the reflections I made at first reading would be just to muse that as far as I can tell in examining all of the papers—the decision itself the reports from Attorneys-General and of course the bill and other ancillary documents—it's unfortunate it seems to me that the court didn't choose to make a declaration of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as opposed to reading the legislation in a particular way that they thought would render it consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Of course if the court had taken the action of a declaration of inconsistency then Parliament could have and indeed would have been obliged to respond in some way that reconsidered the question of inconsistency and of course it might be said that the High Court felt it had no option but to find as it did because in their view there was ambiguity. But I think in order to decide that there was ambiguity they would need to have decided that there was an unresolved question of inconsistency whereas as I've said previously the Attorney-General in 2015 at the time of the bill's passing did not consider that there was a retrospective application or indeed double jeopardy because there was no negative element. There was no punitive element to the regime—certainly not additional to what a person could have expected had they committed the offence in New Zealand—so there was no retrospectivity in that negative sense of looking back and applying an additional penalty. So the whole thing ends up reasonably circular. I'm not sure that I've expressed it terribly well but I think that for courts looking to highlight what they consider to be matters of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it would—and I say this as respectfully as I can manage in the circumstances. It would be preferable for them to err on the side of giving effect to what Parliament surely intended at the time but to highlight then if they think that that would produce inconsistent results with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and to make a declaration accordingly and then allow the lawmaking institution—in the legislative sense of that phrase—to respond in due course as we have now allowed and indeed required. So I'll conclude my remarks there. But I look forward to any engagement across the House including if the Attorney-General himself would care to make a contribution I'm sure we would all greatly benefit from that. Debate interrupted.