SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. To the latter question that I don't have right at hand right now but it's in excess of $800000 that was spent on the proposals for the hate speech legislation in pursuit of the advancements of the recommendations from the royal commission. Where that currently sits is that we've made a referral to the Law Commission for them to be able to provide advice based on their expertise in these relative delicate and complex legal matters and therefore that matter now sits with them.There was one other matter that you asked and it's just slipped—Hon Paul Goldsmith: Human Rights Commission.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Human Rights Commission—oh yes the Human Rights Commission. Yes no as I stated prior I had no responsibilities for the Human Rights Commission in June 2022.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. In terms of the electoral law side of the equation is it still the Minister of Justice's view that the one person one vote principle that we have is still in place across all general and council elections given the passage of the Canterbury Regional Council bill which clearly moves away from that principle? The question's relevant as the Minister of Justice because the Ministry of Justice ultimately gave the advice on the compatibility of that and also the Rotorua bill with the human rights legislation which is against discrimination based on race.On the Rotoroa bill the Ministry of Justice came to the conclusion that it breached the human rights provision because that bill would have given greater voting rights to one ethnic group. And then—rather strangely in my view; inexplicably in my view—it came to the opposite conclusion for the Canterbury bill which clearly by giving Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint two councillors as well as vote in the election for all the other councillors it gives that group far greater weight than other Cantabrians. But the Ministry of Justice came to the opposite view.So my question to the Minister is: has she asked the ministry what it was thinking and how it reconciles those two opposite conclusions drawn?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I'm sure that the member would be relatively familiar with the nature of these discussions given I'm sure that they would have been in-depth discussions that that member would have been a part of when making the decision to introduce this particular form of voting in structuring the initial Canterbury Regional Council bill that provided for local body representation and for those two permanent seats of the Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. So I'm sure that he's well adept at these discussions. I'm sure he would have been heavily engaged in reaching the determination that the then Government did.That said for our own consideration what we did do—and probably in my mind the Attorney-General is the person that ultimately has to determine whether or not something is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act with respect to the Canterbury Regional Council for reasons—as it was said there while there appeared to be a distinction on the grounds of race or ethnic origin it was found this distinction did not cause disadvantage to one or more classes of individuals due to there being no comparable group with similar status in Canterbury. It went on to acknowledge the previous National Government's prior legislation that this bill was built on.With respect to the Rotorua District Council representation agreements as you rightly point out the Attorney-General considered this local bill to be inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It went on to say that it would create a difference in voting weight between those that were on the Māori roll and those that were on the general roll which is not the same for the Canterbury Regional Council as the member would be aware because you would have been heavily engaged in those discussions in your previous time in Government.