icl

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. The RA says that the reason for the Referral is that sub-paragraph (ii) does not relate or is not connected to sub-paragraph (i). And so, sub-paragraph (ii) should be excluded from Article 5(1)(k) as it is not related to sub-paragraph (i) of Article 5(1)(k) which is about individuals. However, the expression (“; ana”) at the end of (i)(k)(1) of Article 5 of the Bill, includes “the purposes of economic development zones’ in (ii) with the vulnerable groups of individuals in (i); but it is not related as the draft is intended to connect the (i) and (ii) together but not separately. The concept of economic development zone is not part of group of people in (i). The RA submitted that because of the inclusion of (ii) with (i), it is an ambiguity that the Court should look at it. In terms of the drafting, there should be a separate provision of its own for the purpose of economic zones. The second aspect of the issue concerns the Bill (Item 1A) and Article 16(1) of the Constitution. Under the Amended Constitutional Referral, the RA says that the Item 1A of the Bill is inconsistent with Article 16(1) of the Constitution. That challenge of constitutionality under Article 16 (1) disappears in the submissions of the RA by a clear concession to the effect that subject to the Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Vanuatu based on President of the Republic of Vanuatu v Attorney General [1998] VUSC 18 and Attorney General v Timakata [1993] VUCA 2. The RA conceded that Item 1A does not appear to infringe the rights protected under