The second aspect, and probably the most fundamental aspect, of reform within local government—again, that we touched on in the Estimates conversation—was in regards to three waters, and I want to start, firstly, by really getting right back to the start of "What's the problem we're trying to fix?" And I think it would be fair—and no major party is standing here saying that the current state is fit for purpose and perfect. I think everyone acknowledges that improvement is required in this space; the conversation is, really, how best to undertake that. But, if we get back to some of the key costs and benefits statistics that have been articulated, we've heard numbers bandied around of $120 billion to $180 billion of infrastructure cost. But I want the Minister to reflect in terms of that, because that was the basis in order to say why the scale of cost is required. When Castalia, who is one of the independent third-party assessment agencies, had a look at the financial data that was prepared by Scottish Water, or the Water Industry Commission for Scotland (WICS)—and I quote—"The reform scenario was based on faulty assumptions and flawed analysis." Well, I can't be much more categoric in terms of that statement, but that's in regards, as I said, to that $120 billion to $180 billion fiscal number. Farrier Swier, also another independent agency appointed in order to have a look at that financial modelling, said—and I quote—"WICS' analysis cannot be used to definitively conclude that the amalgamation in and of itself will lead to material efficiency gains in New Zealand." Those are both significant statements that underpin the fact that the whole basis of this fundamental reform in regards to three waters is based, and using Castalia's words, on faulty assumptions and flawed analysis.