Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to make a few comments on the legislation which we on this side of the House support. Our understanding of it as the Minister has outlined is that the courts may and on rare occasions declare a piece of legislation or whole legislation or part of it be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What we're talking about in this legislation is a process to respond to that and you know we're not in a United States sort of situation where the Supreme Court can strike down legislation and—you know no system is perfect. I would argue our system is different and it doesn't give the courts those powers generally but it has Parliament as sovereign and accountable to the public for their decision making.So what we're talking about here is when the court declares that a piece of legislation is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act then Parliament needs to respond and the response may very well be Yes OK all right we acknowledge that from the court but we think that that breach is justified for X Y and Z reasons and all these issues are complex and that could be a legitimate response and we'll stick with it we're not going to change because we think it is justified because of X Y Z." But the point of this process is to make the Government of the day do that not just ignore it and not just pretend that it doesn't exist because I think that would undermine ultimately the respect that is due to the senior courts of this country; they are deserving of a considered response and the House should take the opportunity to say "Yes"—you know one option would be to say "Well yeah frankly we think that's right and we're going to change the legislation." Another response would be: "No we acknowledge the court's decision but we think because of these reasons we're going to stick with the legislation as it is and ultimately it's for Parliament to decide."Of course the system does depend on the quality of the advice of the Ministry of Justice when it develops advice on bills. And if the Chair will indulge me for just one example that is highly relevant today it is in relation to the Canterbury Regional Council bill for example. So one of the clauses of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act relates to electoral rights in clause 12 and it refers to that a New Zealand citizen who is over the age of 18 has the right to vote in general periodic elections of members to the House of Representatives which elections shall be by equal suffrage. That notion of equal suffrage is part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and we've got a piece of legislation not in relation to the House of Representatives but in relation to local government which is moving away from equal suffrage but the Ministry of Justice in its report paid no attention to that whatsoever—the courts may who knows?So it does rely on a consistent approach by officials and via the courts to defend those human rights which we take sometimes for granted in this country. There are always competing rights and you know none of this is straightforward. The desire for equal suffrage—there may be arguments that some other right overrides that and maybe I don't know I don't think there does but the argument could come up that the Government might be able to come up with an argument; so far they haven't. In that particular case they haven't come up with an argument at all; they've just kept their head down and hoped for the best. That's where the system does need some rigour and some points where the Government of the day does need to justify its decision. It may well be as I said that the Government of the day can justify a breach for reasons X Y Z but the point of this bill as I understand it is that it makes a process clear for that to happen. On that basis we are supportive of it."