5. Question No. 5—JusticeHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 5—Justice5. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does she agree with the Prime Minister's statement on electoral law that There's absolutely no change to the principle of one person one vote. Our elections are still going to be one person one vote for the councils for general elections" and does she stand by all her statements on electoral law?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yes and yes in the context in which they were made.Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can she agree with the Prime Minister's statement when this Parliament passed the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Act last year which gives Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors in addition to its members enjoying one person one vote for all the other councillors—a clear move away from one person one vote?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Very much in a similar way that members of the previous National Government reconciled those similar statements when they cast their vote for the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. That bill if this House will recall did exactly one of two things: first it ensured that there were democratic representatives elected to Environment Canterbury and secondly it ensured that Ngāi Tahi retained the right and the obligation to appoint two members to that entity.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can she not understand the difference between an appointment made by a democratically elected Government—which is accountable to the voters—on a transitional basis and a permanent shift away from the principle of equal voting rights in this country as is brought about by the Canterbury Regional Council bill?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yes I fully do understand and I understand that the previous National Government voted for a model that enabled direct voting and direct appointments by Ngāi Tahu in that circumstance.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does she stand by her statement during the second reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill: "In simple terms voters want to know and have a right to know how we as politicians butter our bread." and if so why did she expect Kiwis to go down to the Companies Office to do research to figure out just how much of her bread the Race Relations Commissioner had buttered?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: To the first part of the question yes. Hon Grant Robertson: What a disgrace that man is. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it set a—disgraceful? SPEAKER: Order! The question—the Hon Paul Goldsmith.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does it set a good example that the Minister responsible for electoral law only declares a conflict of interest with a political donor after she has been caught red-handed? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Probably just to the latter part of that question first: if the member means caught red-handed by publicly disclosing and making declarations in accordance with the Electoral Act then I stand here guilty.Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. I let my colleague finish answering that question but I'm really struggling with how that fits with the primary question that was put down.SPEAKER: Yeah I probably should have stood up and ruled that out of order and I apologise to the member for not actually. It is a term that is unparliamentary and it shouldn't have happened.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did she recuse herself from Cabinet when the decision was made to award the Human Rights Commission an additional $10 million in Budget 2022; if not why not?Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. A supplementary question must follow on from the primary question that was asked. I do not believe that that question fulfils that.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. My previous question canvassed the issue of voters wanting to know "how we as politicians butter our bread." which was perfectly on the question of transparency around donations and this follows perfectly from that in terms of transparency and conflicts of interest. I'm just—SPEAKER: Can you read that question again.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which one?SPEAKER: The one that is being challenged right now.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Sorry the current one? The current one is: did she recuse herself from Cabinet when the decision was made to award the Human Rights Commission an additional $10 million in Budget 2022; if not why not?Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. Two points: the first is the substantive point I made which was that that question does not follow on from the primary question which is what a supplementary question must do. Secondly I believe that after the exchange we just heard you indicated that the question that Mr Goldsmith is trying to hang that supplementary off you would and should have ruled out of order. So on both counts—both the fact that it doesn't follow from the primary question and from the fact that it shouldn't have been allowed as the previous supplementary question—that question is out of order.SPEAKER: Yeah I'll rule on it. I agree with the Hon Grant Robertson. That is neither about electoral law reform nor one person one vote.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point.SPEAKER: Are you speaking to my ruling or a new point of order?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well I would just point out that it is not unusual in the course of oral questions for supplementaries to go slightly wide of the primary. The question that was answered by the Minister had an element at the end of it that you have ruled unparliamentary but having answered the supplementary question it must be in order for the member asking the question to be able to further explore the answer that the Minister gave.SPEAKER: Yeah but it's not about her statements at all. So have you got another supplementary?Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes it—well the primary question was: does she stand by her statements on electoral law? The third supplementary which you did not rule out—SPEAKER: No I'm not arguing it. Have you got another supplementary or not?Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well I can't remember how many I've had. Maureen Pugh: No. Hon Paul Goldsmith: No I haven't but—SPEAKER: Well then it's a no. [Interruption] Order!"