Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I'm pleased to be able to support this bill. This bill provides a mechanism for the executive and the House of Representatives to consider and if deemed necessary respond to a declaration of inconsistency made under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the Human Rights Act 1993.This bill is a positive development for New Zealand democracy as it will increase the scrutiny of legislation enacted by Government which affects fundamental human rights. It's essential that we highlight any of the laws and consider them that may not be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and ensure that they are justified over the medium to long term. There have been a number of examples where bills have been passed into law where they have been identified as being inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but the Attorney-General or the Government of the day has determined if they can fall under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which allows for justified limitations—i.e. it allows for reasonable limits to be justified by law—as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That is obviously a judgment call and one that can differ and reasonable minds can differ as to the inclusion of what is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and certainly there have been examples over the last couple of years where there has been significant consternation and debate about what limitations are appropriate and what are not.It is important that this House does have the right to make supreme law. When I say supreme law" it is with some checks and balances. The fundamental checks and balances that any Government is subject to every three years is the popular vote. That is the chance for all New Zealanders to vote on whether they think the Government has got it right or not. And if they don't they have the option to vote for a different configuration of political parties to form the Government to make that law. So there is always that constitutional safeguard in that the Parliament is subject to the will of the people via the mechanism of voting. However it is important that the other branch of Government effectively—which is in our constitutional framework the courts—is able to examine any laws that Parliament passes and that they do it against the framework of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.I should just go very briefly into the background of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which goes back to 1948. After the Second World War the conscience of the world was somewhat shocked and horrified by things that had happened during the course of that war and the impact on people—human rights—had certainly not been considered at all in many cases let alone observed. The atrocities that were seen and discovered at the end of that war truly shocked the conscience of the world. It was deemed necessary to create a universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals so as to give effect to the Charter of the United Nations provisions on human rights which led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ratified in 1948. That has been a very significant piece of effectively international law of sorts which has informed the development of human rights around the world including in New Zealand which in 1990 after significant debate and discussion in this country as to the constitutional nature of parliamentary supremacy enacted the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That has formed the development of a jurisprudence by our courts in this country and trying to get that balance right between the courts being able to observe and interpret the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and any limitations on the rights of individuals and their rights and freedoms against laws passed by this Parliament.There have been some cases where the courts have made some decisions which have led us to where we are today—for example in 2015 I think it was the High Court found in the case brought by Arthur Taylor who had been fighting to give prisoners the right to vote since the 2010 law took it away from all inmates that this law was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and would lead to arbitrary outcomes. It is important that the courts can make those determinations. It is also important that Parliament is able to maintain sovereignty to make law as it is ultimately responsible to the will of the people via voting in general elections but it is important that Parliament considers seriously any decisions made by the courts. There is an issue that has become apparent: the senior courts of New Zealand could make rulings and can make rulings that any piece of law is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but Parliament could ignore it. This bill that we're considering here today for its third reading remedies that situation. It requires that any such decision by the senior courts when they make a declaration of inconsistency is referred to this Parliament and it must be considered. This bill also formally recognises the jurisdiction of the senior courts to make declarations of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This new bill brings the reporting mechanism also in the Human Rights Act in line with amendments to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.This bill follows international jurisprudence that the affirmation of rights may require substantive protection but also procedural protection and this bill is particularly focused on procedural protection. The bill does not alter the law substantially with regard to the jurisdiction of the senior courts but brings New Zealand into line with many overseas jurisdictions of having a formal reporting mechanism to this House. The bill will also effectively give the senior courts a louder voice when dealing with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act matters and will make it harder for Parliament to ignore any such declarations of inconsistency made by the senior courts. The bill will also increase scrutiny of legislation that the Government enacts that affects fundamental human rights which is a positive development for New Zealand's democracy and continues the work that in effect started back in 1990 with the enactment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The bill will also encourage the senior courts to consider older policy that may not be serving New Zealand's current needs and that is a positive development because New Zealand's Parliament has been known as the fastest gun in the West in terms of legislative development having a unicameral system of Parliament—i.e. one legislative chamber without further checks and balances. So it can make law very very rapidly.I'll just touch on briefly that New Zealand did become quite frustrated as a country with laws being made by Governments who had been elected with a first-past-the-post system and then proceeded to carry out a rapid change to the legal structure in the country which they hadn't necessarily gone to the population on at the election which led to the development of the mixed-member proportional system or "MMP" and that was designed to try to balance those different competing interests in society and ensure that there wasn't such rapid change of law because people need consistency to be able to plan ahead to make decisions on how they develop their businesses how they develop their lives what they can rely on. There needs to be some confidence that they can rely on particularly the trajectory of where policy formulation is going into the future. Sometimes however that does not work out particularly well and certainly it's important that the senior courts are able to go back and look at older legislation that may not necessarily be fit for purpose and consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So it is good that this bill will encourage the senior courts to do that.In New Zealand's constitutional framework Parliament is sovereign but it's important to shine a light on laws that are not consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and ensure that any such laws are justified in a free and democratic society. We support the rule of law we support the rights and freedoms of New Zealanders and we support the Government being held to account on laws that will impact on the rights of New Zealanders. This is a positive development and I'm very pleased to recommend it to the House."