▁issue , ▁pay ing ▁attention ▁both ▁to ▁the ▁constitution al ▁context ▁and ▁to ▁the ▁moment ▁in ▁the ▁country ' s ▁history ▁at ▁which ▁the ▁choice ▁about ▁sever ance ▁is ▁to ▁be ▁made . ▁ ▁Sach s ▁J ▁con cur red ▁with ▁Krieg ler ▁J ▁that ▁the ▁necessary ▁ex cis ions ▁from ▁sections ▁ 6 5 A ▁to ▁ 6 5 M ▁would ▁leave ▁a ▁stat ut ory ▁provision ▁that ▁was ▁lingu ist ically ▁sust ain able , ▁concept ually ▁int act , ▁function ally ▁oper ational ▁and ▁econom ically ▁vi able . ▁As ▁to ▁the ▁question ▁of ▁whether ▁or ▁not ▁the ▁parts ▁of ▁those ▁prov isions ▁which ▁were ▁constitution ally ▁bad ▁should , ▁in ▁the ▁interests ▁of ▁justice ▁and ▁good ▁government , ▁and ▁as ▁intended ▁in ▁section ▁ 9 8 ( 5 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution , ▁be ▁kept ▁in ▁existence ▁so ▁as ▁to ▁enable ▁Parliament ▁to ▁rect ify ▁the ▁legisl ation , ▁Sach s ▁J ▁found ▁that ▁it ▁had ▁not ▁been ▁established ▁that ▁to ▁end ▁comm itt al ▁proceed ings ▁would ▁imp air ▁justice ▁or ▁inter f ere ▁with ▁good ▁government ▁in ▁any ▁dr astic ▁or ▁irre par able ▁way . ▁The ▁other ▁rem ed ies ▁provided ▁for ▁in ▁sections ▁ 6 5 A ▁to ▁ 6 5 M ▁remained ▁available ▁to ▁credit ors . ▁There ▁was ▁also ▁no ▁reason ▁for ▁the ▁court ▁to ▁ins ist ▁on ▁a ▁rapid ▁decision ▁by ▁Parliament , ▁one ▁way ▁or ▁the ▁other , ▁either ▁to ▁accept ▁the ▁continu ance ▁of ▁sections ▁ 6 5 A ▁to