You would expect me to do that and say that. When you read the budget papers, you will come to page four hundred and something and you will see—certainly when it comes to water purchases—NFP. One could surmise as to what 'NFP' might stand for, but I reckon it's 'not for publication'. I reckon that's what it stands for. It really beggars belief that, in the budget papers that are talking about the financial document, the blueprint, the vision for the nation, the federal Labor government sometimes won't acknowledge or actually put down in black and white how much it intends to spend on water buybacks, and that is wrong. You could argue that, when the government goes in and purchases water, it distorts the water market, and that is very much the case. By the same token, at the same time, the government has an obligation to fess up to how much it intends to spend on this unnecessary quest to provide the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder with even more water. The CEWH already has 72 per cent of available water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

But I digress. I think you get the point. I could go on and on about Indigenous water that's going to become part of the claim. I could go on and on about the native title claims. This does worry me. I do not want to see it stymie progress, stymie development or upset the chance of actually addressing the housing crisis. The coalition does not agree at all with this particular legislation. It's unnecessary.