But I want to come back to the purpose. And again, the member and others who've spoken in support of the bill have pointed out that Environment Canterbury can't do their job. They can't make decisions about resource allocation, they can't make decisions about matters that have a potential cultural impact on the iwi, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, without having voting members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the council. In fact, the member said quite clearly that without the input of Ngāi Tahu into decision making, how on earth would the council know. In fact, Eugenie Sage said the same thing: how would the council have known not to build a non-compliant waste-water treatment plant discharging effluent into Akaroa Harbour unless Ngāi Tahu told them so? Well, potentially what Environment Canterbury could do is ask an ecologist, ask an environmental scientist, or even ask Ngāi Tahu for a submission on what they think. But that doesn't require that the iwi, that the rūnanga, have members appointed as voting members on to Environment Canterbury It's not possible to draw the conclusion that that's necessary from the problem statement that the member or Eugenie Sage has described.