Faafoi KrisNEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS (DECLARATIONS OF INCONSISTENCY) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Mālō e lelei Madam Speaker. I move That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill responds to a Supreme Court decision in the matter of Attorney-General v Taylor and in that decision the Supreme Court determined that the senior courts have the power to issue declarations of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Human Rights Review Tribunal has been able to issue declarations of inconsistency since 2001 but only in respect of the right to be free from discrimination. The effect of the declaration by the Supreme Court is not to invalidate the legislation in question or render ineffective but to indicate to the executive branch of Government and importantly to the House that there is a substantive issue. And given that the Bill of Rights Act requires courts to give legislation a rights-consistent interpretation if one was available such declarations will not be made lightly. The Supreme Court's decision raised a question of what should happen after the senior courts issued a declaration of inconsistency under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Currently there is no mechanism which ensures that the executive or the House will give serious reconsideration to the legislation in light of the judicial comment. This bill provides a process for that reconsideration to occur. By doing so the bill strengthens the protections of the rights and freedoms affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I want to thank the Privileges Committee for its expert and diligent consideration of the bill and those members of the public who made submissions. Submitters included individuals with significant expertise in constitutional and human rights law and the changes made to the bill will create a stronger framework for the Executive and 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 the declaration of inconsistency six sitting days after the declaration becomes final. The bill amended both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act so that declarations about the consistency of legislation with those Acts are treated in the same way. The bill as reported back from the Privileges Committee now requires the Government to also respond to the declaration of inconsistency within six months of a declaration being brought to the attention of the House. This deadline can be varied by the resolution of this House. It may be desirable to extend the deadline if for instance a longer period is required to respond to a particularly complex policy issue. The Government response must be presented to the House by the Minister responsible for the legislation to which the declaration of inconsistency relates. The notification by the Attorney-General to the House would also trigger a parliamentary process which would be included in the House's Standing Orders. This process would include a declaration of inconsistency being referred to a select committee allocated by the Clerk of the House select committee consideration of the declaration and reporting on the declaration within four months—unless the Business Committee determines a different deadline—and a debate in the House on the declaration the select committee report and the Government's response to the declaration upon the presentation of the latter.The Privileges Committee consulted the Standing Orders Committee on the recommended parliamentary process which will be adopted permanently in the House's rules when the next review of Standing Orders takes place. The Privileges Committee also agreed that a consistent approach to declarations of inconsistency should apply between the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The process recommended by the committee provides a clear framework for dialogue between the branches of Government to consider and respond to declarations of inconsistency and the issues that they raise. And this is the aim of the bill: 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 arrangements that is properly a matter for each branch of Government to determine on its own. This is an important constitutional development. It responds to the Supreme Court decision in Taylor in a manner that preserves the sovereignty of Parliament but also creates a means for Parliament to review whether any limits on rights in an Act are justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. On that note I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.