So there's a whole lot of things I think that whilst the intention on both of these things is good—and I don't think there's any doubt that from a local government perspective the water situation needs to be reviewed—the problem is the three waters proposition as it's been put to the communities doesn't account for what effectively will be a whole lot of costs imposed on council as a result of them having their assets and the asset base and the operation of it taken away from them. And also, it doesn't account for what happens to the debt that's left behind as a result of that. I think it looks to me like it's completely inequitable. 