5357 (2026). Oriini Kaipara to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

5357 (2026). Oriini Kaipara to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Did any advice provided to the Minister identify legal or rule-of-law risks associated with the retrospective application and validation provisions contained in the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill?

Hon Louise Upston: Ministry of Social Development (the Ministry) advice relating to retrospective legislation was informed by the guidance provided in the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC) guidelines – that, as a general principle, legislation should not have retrospective effect or interfere with accrued rights and duties. The Ministry also referenced that LDAC guidelines further advised that departure from this principle can be justified in certain situations, including when Parliament wishes to amend the law in light of a judgment given in court proceedings that may be contrary to an important public interest. Ministry advice (informed by LDAC guidelines) further canvassed the design of a savings provision within retrospective legislation, which should uphold the strong convention that parliamentary legislation should not generally interfere with the judicial process in particular cases before the courts. The Ministry raised that a provision which saves a smaller number of litigants is more likely to be considered inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. However, the Attorney General considered that the Bill (including the proposed savings provision) was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.