say, "But hang on! I can do that same job, get the same results, but with 6 buckets of water". I should be honest enough to say, based on a process that we need to build into this [points to "localism" on whiteboard] of checking whether your assertion is right and I'm wrong. But if there's a 4 bucket saving we need to be able to account for it over there [points to second-half number] and be willing enough to adjust. That's what localism's all about. You see it played out over and over again, whether it's Gol Gol on the Murray or in other places around the system where local communities get involved, I'm satisfied that they can generally work together and be at least as efficient -- if not more efficient -- than some of the theoretical models that populate our thinking at present. And we have to be able to build a system of adaptation and a willingness to change the numbers based on that opportunity. And the third line of thinking I want to bring in between 2012 and 2015, the half-way point is the Windsor Rules Review, as I like to call it. I said in lots of places around the bush that Tony Windsor, when the Parliament Inquiry had a look at this, that his recommendation number 1 which suggested that there were potential major savings if we had a look at the rules that currently govern the management of water among the states