Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I take a five-minute call for the National Party on the second reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. When I rise to speak I'm conscious to bring any member of the public who may be viewing or listening in on the journey with us. This is the second reading. The first reading was on 27 May 2020. Almost two years later now we're here for the second reading after the bill has been submitted to the select committee for scrutiny.The debates have been interesting this morning and important because this is about the constitutional framework of Aotearoa New Zealand. By way of background what is a declaration of inconsistency? It is a formal statement granted by a court as a remedy as legislation is inconsistent with fundamental human rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The declaration informs the public and Parliament that in the court's view an Act or legislation is inconsistent with fundamental human rights.It's important also to clarify that a declaration of inconsistency does not affect the validity of the Act or the law or anything done lawfully under the Act. However currently there is no explicit power in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to issue declarations of inconsistency. There's been much discussion around that and I'm just going to come back to the process.The Privileges Committee considered 43 submissions from the public and heard oral evidence from 10 submitters. The key messages that arise out of the consideration of this bill before it passes to the third reading are that currently the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides no procedural mechanism by which declarations of inconsistency can be reported back to the House. So when the bill was before the Privileges Committee the select committee that examined the bill the committee examined the bill and recommended that it be passed but with amendments that have been agreed to unanimously.In summary those proposed amendments are that the Attorney-General is to notify Parliament of a declaration of inconsistency and that with that the Attorney-General must present a report to Parliament—the select committee has proposed instead that the Attorney-General notify Parliament. Another recommendation from the select committee is the requirement for the Government to respond and it's recommending that the bill be amended to require such a response. A further recommendation is that there be a six-month deadline—that the Government's response is to be presented to the House within six months of the declaration and that it's important that the statutory requirement to respond contains the default deadline which leads on to the next recommendation and that is that the House is empowered to alter the Government's deadline. The select committee proposes that the House be empowered to do so by making a resolution specifying a new deadline.So in the one minute I have left I note that it's significant that this is an issue addressing the constitutional framework and there's been debate and the sharing of views in the House about that separation of the powers between the executive the judicial and the status of Parliament as a sovereign body. This bill will come to the House for the third reading and in doing so it's interesting to note as one of the speakers has addressed that there is an issue before the Māori Affairs Committee which I sit on where we've received a report back from the Attorney-General with a view that in particular to the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill the assessment at that time based on the information available to the Attorney-General is that it was viewed that there was an unjustifiable limitation to the rights outlined under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds in time. On that note the National Party commends this bill to the House.