Sio WilliamSu'a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am excited about taking a call on this bill and I want to confine my remarks to the purpose clause and then I want to also make reference to Subpart 3 Community Magistrates" in Part 2. I also want to speak on my colleague Louisa Wall's Supplementary Order Paper 217. But before I do so I want to say that I think by and large this House welcomes the review and the updated legislation. It has been about a hundred years since the original Act came into existence and therefore I think generally speaking most of us are trying to ensure that we get the best legislation out of this. I am glad and I hope that the Government does take its time in ensuring that this process is given due consideration by all parties. I want to make reference to Part 1 and particularly the purposes because I understand that in the review on which this bill is based it had the Supreme Court Act of 2003 where there is reference to a couple of key principles that are missing from the purpose of this bill. I note in clause 3(b)(ii) it makes reference to "practice and procedure;" but there is nothing in the interpretation clause that makes reference to that practice and procedure. My reference is that in the Supreme Court Act it made reference to the rule of law and it made reference to the Treaty of Waitangi and I think there also needs to be a reference to the sovereignty of Parliament as well as to judicial independence. It seems to me that we are expunging some key elements that should underline our court systems and I am not sure what the Government's intentions are. I did understand that in the second reading speeches the Minister said that these principles or these elements would be included in our constitution but if that is the case why are we not then amending the constitution before we do this? So that is the first question I want to ask. I also want to ask the Minister—the Government is calling this the Judicature Modernisation Bill. The removal of that key element—the removal of our emphasis on abiding by the rule of law—is not a good look for us on the international scene particularly in our relationship with what is happening in Fiji you know. In this day and age modernisation means that more than at any other time we have to re-emphasise our commitment to these core principles core elements that should underline our court system. I refer to subclause (6) of clause 38 under the heading "Miscellaneous matters" and I simply ask—there is a reference in clause 38 that anybody can ask the judge to detain somebody who is leaving to go overseas and if proved to that judge that person can be detained. But then in subclause (6) it says that "A defendant who is remanded in custody must be brought before the court within 4 days after the date of the order." I am simply asking why 4 days? Why not "be brought before the court immediately."? I say that only because the experience of some of our constituency when they have been detained whilst they are on an urgent matter—whether it be say a funeral in Pakistan or India the detaining of this person before they are able to go before the court for those 4 days means that they miss the urgency of the matter that they were travelling to. I am not talking about whether they are able to justify the warrant for them to be detained; I am asking whether that person being held in prison should have the right to immediately be brought before the courts and not be held for 4 days. I want to refer to Subpart 3 in Part 2. This is about community magistrates. I want to ask a question."