Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to return to a comment made by the previous Minister in the chair Nania Mahuta who disputed that Part 2 here that we're talking about the establishment of the water services entities—she disputed that this wasn't a Government forcibly seizing ratepayer owned assets. She disputed that it wasn't Government theft by stealth. I'd like to ask a question of the Minister that if they're so confident that it isn't those two things then why not have a clause in Part 2 that would allow councils to opt out? Because of course at the start of this process there was good faith and the councils were told that they could opt out of these mega water entities. So if the bill and the reform programme is such a good idea as they proclaim why would they not give the councils the choice to choose if they would join or not? Because of course if it was as good as their fake news ads proclaim then councils would quite happily choose to opt in. Maybe there might be a mixed response. Maybe some councils do and some councils don't. But why is there not the clause that would allow exactly what this Government promised councils at the start of this process—that they could opt out?On the second point I'd like to make is just talking a bit more when the Minister the previous Minister in the chair talked about how it wasn't a matter so much of ethnicity around co-governance obligations or co-governance structures in this bill; it was the obligations of the Treaty. I think it would be interesting to hear from this Minister and he did somewhat talk to the point in his previous contribution but I would like to hear—well I suppose if we look at the Environment Canterbury (ECan) bill there was some discussion whether the Treaty trumped democracy by undemocratically appointing two commissioners. So under the obligations of the Treaty in this bill does the Treaty trump ratepayer-owned assets? It would be interesting to understand the interpretation of the Treaty in this bill as well.Then my final point is the good Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 287 by my colleague Simon Watts which talks about replacing clause 27(2) to include at least one representative from each territorial authority covered by the entity. So what it's saying is in those representative groups every territorial authority within that grouping would have one seat. I would argue by the current bill not having the ability for every council to be representative speaks to the heart of the matter that this Government fundamentally does not understand rural and regional New Zealand. Now they sent out their Associate Minister who went round every council and said Look you know"—doffed his cap—"we're here to listen." They all said to him "You're a great guy but wrong party." But they were left with the expectation that this Government was going to listen to them. The Prime Minister also made the statement when the three mayors got up in Auckland Mayor Brown Gordon and Mauger and the Prime Minister said "We're happy to listen." So why would you not demonstrate you are listening with each territorial authority to include at least one seat as described in SOP 287 by my colleague Simon Watts that they can have one seat on every representative group as well as explaining to them as they were promised at the start of this process if it's such a good idea why can't each council opt out as they were promised?"