Bennett David; Dean JacquiHon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I am very disappointed the Minister of Local Government didn't answer those questions when she had that opportunity. She did give an answer to Andrew Bayly—again Andrew Bayly has recognised a massive problem in her answer.But there is another problem in her answer. She says that Watercare is going to be $1.2 billion in deficit—it can't do what it's supposed to have done. Well this new entity suddenly has the ability to borrow more than Watercare and all those other councils. That $1.2 billion that Watercare was going to have spent has come out of other entities that have put in assets that are higher than their expenses. So basically you're transferring from some other council the ability to fund councils that haven't been able to pay for their thing. This is not some magical thing that you put them all together and suddenly we've got a bigger pot of money that we can all do more with; it doesn't work that way in life. If you put a bad business with a good business the good business is subsidising the bad business and that is exactly what is going to happen here. To say that Watercare will get $1.2 billion that's because Whangārei and some of the other regions that are part of that Auckland region are actually going to be subsidising that. As Gerry Brownlee said Christchurch has had an exemplary water system and now will be subsidising others—that's the ultimate effect. It's not as if there is a very small debt-loading in councils around water. It's huge and it's not going to change when you put them together.Now this clause is the heart of the bill. It effectively takes away ownership from the councils. Now every member in this Chamber will think What actually happened in this House 140 years ago? How did we actually take assets off people in this House and get away with it? How did that actually happen?" You know you can't actually fathom how people did that 140 years ago. With the greatest respect to Nanaia and Willie and that you've got a much bigger experience in this than me. But I just can't understand how that actually got through Parliament of the day how this building would allow assets to be taken off people that shouldn't have been taken off them. This is what we are doing here today. We are taking assets off a community. It is taking assets off councils—that is what it is doing. Effectively you have no ownership. This is what is happening here today and that's why councils are aggrieved.I say to the Labour members actually we don't have to do another wrong in this Chamber. We've done it once before and it's been a tremendous wrong for this country. This is another wrong being made here today in the way that we're doing this. We're taking an asset off a community. And fullest respect to the Minister—I wish she had answered those questions. It doesn't make sense her explanation and I think this is a very dangerous and sad day when we pass a clause like clause 166 in this Chamber.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m."