Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chair. I just take a call to respond to some of the issues raised here in Part 2. Just in terms of the referendum that has just been referenced it is totally legitimate. Under the first-past-the-post system there was a 76 percent rate in favour. The turnout was around 75 percent of those eligible which we know is somewhere around that 223 entities. There was also a requirement to consult the Southern District Health Board medical officer of health and also local Hokonui Rūnanga. So that was a robust process and met all the requirements under section 7 and section 9 of the Local Electoral Act 2001.I note that—and it's relevant to Mr Penk's point later on—this has to be enacted no later than the date five years after the commencement of this Act. So it is a legitimate vote. We do have time to bring this through within the very generous time frame of this vote. So there are no issues at all with legitimacy of the referendum. I actually commend the Gore council for going down this path rather than the more arduous tortuous and expensive legal route. To Mr Penk's points in terms of the transfer: well there are some quite stringent requirements placed on the company. They have to essentially be able to put a 30-year plan to the council to satisfy the council that they have the plan in place to deliver high-quality water to the people on the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. In clause 8(1)(c) I think it demonstrates that this has to be done to the council's satisfaction.In terms of putting in a time line I do reference back to that referendum in that the five years is actually the default time line. I'm told that the Cold Creek precedent that we're working off took a year. I note local government elections are coming up this year and I pity any local councillor that will be seen dragging his feet trying to bring this through given the feeling in Otama and the eastern Southland area in support of this. So there is I think within those clauses 8 and 9 plenty of certainty for what we're trying to bring forward and getting the outcome that we're trying to achieve.Could I also just reference the medical officer of health and the capacity to provide safe drinking water. I understand there is a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward that will amplify that a little bit and clarify that a bit and I think that's the outcome ultimately that we're working towards. Everyone wants there to be safe clean drinking water whether it's for stock and of course for the potable water for the houses and schools and the marae involved. So the people here are the ultimate arbiters of this because they're the consumers as well as the owners so there is every intention and no stone will be left unturned.They have got a track record it's been pointed out of 45-plus years of delivering just such a service. So all the transfers that we're talking about are merely technical transfers in the sense that these people have already put the scheme in; they know every connection and pipeline that there is. So there is absolutely no ambiguity here in their mind; they're not new to this coming in What are we going to do here?" They know implicitly. They have shown the governance and the ability to govern the management of this scheme to a very high level for a long time."