I have on the Table a tabled amendment. It deals with clause 13 of this bill. It is completely inconsistent, in my view, to come to this House and say, on behalf of ECan, "We want to have Ngāi Tahu representation appointed to our council and then retain the right to, at any time, an Act, section 19Z(2), of the Local Electoral Act, to create Māori constituencies." What is the point of one if the other is a possibility? The mere fact that this clause is still in here gives absolute lie to the claim that the wider Canterbury community are happy with this bill, because, if they were, ECan would have done exactly as 19Z(2) of the Local Electoral Act allows them to do. But they haven't; they've turned up and said, "We want a special bill that gives us the special authority to ask Ngāi Tahu to appoint two representatives to our council. We then want those councillors treated exactly as anybody else,"—and that part's fair—"but we also want to retain the provision that would allow us to create Māori constituencies, should we see fit in the future."