Now, one of the things that I found interesting when I was reading the proposal from Environment Canterbury was that they had the benefit of more than nine years of that being in operation, and they said that they saw that the practical benefits of having mana whenua representation in Canterbury were rapidly and widely recognised. This recognition remained during the nine years for which that special legislation was in place. Those benefits include greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. So I can't understand why the other side of the House would be opposed to something that is providing, once again, greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. Instead they are fixated on race-based arguments for why they oppose, instead of looking at the benefits that this has brought through proven experience in the nine years that it operated.