But it's fair to say that concerns have been raised—it's fair to say that concerns have been raised. Concerns are occasionally raised about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance. So I'd like to refer the House to the Attorney-General's legal advice that was submitted to the select committee. I'll sum it up. It says, "We have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with [that] Act." I summed it up, but I'm going to go into a little bit more detail, because of the submitters seem to require it. As they said, "Section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds set out in the Human Rights Act 1993 … The key questions in assessing whether there's a limit to the right of freedom from discrimination are: … does the legislation draw a distinction on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993; and if so, … does the distinction involve disadvantage to one or more classes of individuals?" They go on to say—I'm skipping a couple of paragraphs because I'm sure you don't want me to read the whole thing—that "The Bill … confers rights on Māori that are not conferred on other people, by providing Ngāi Tahu with non-elected representatives on the Council, in addition to their vote for elected members. The Bill could therefore be seen to draw distinctions on the basis of rights or ethnic origin." But the important part is in the next paragraph, because it goes as follows: "Notwithstanding this, the extent to which the distinctions reflect the status of Māori as … Crown's Treaty partner, and the Crown's duties under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we do not consider any other groups in a comparable position. The Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreed between Ngāi Tahu and the Crown in November 1997 acknowledged the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands … and affirmed their special association with the natural environment in a number of areas." 