George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, just when I was beginning to respect your forensic analysis of these provisions you have launched into a rhetorical flight of fancy. But I will not follow you there. This is a very oddly drafted amendment because—and, again, this is probably a drafting issue rather than anything I can blame you for, Senator Ludlam—although it provides that proposed section 187KB of the bill be omitted and the following words substituted, in fact between what you propose and what is in the original bill there is a difference of only one word—and that is that the bill says 'may' and your proposed amendment says 'must'.

Senator Ludlam, the reason this entire discussion is otiose is that the government has already committed to doing so. Neither the provision in its original form nor your amendment quantifies the amount or identifies what proportion it ought to be. There is no quantification or allocation in the amendment that you propound, Senator Ludlam. You merely say that rather than it being permissive, that the government may make a contribution, the government must make a contribution. But the government is making a contribution. That has already been announced. It has already been agreed. It is well understood in the industry. Therefore, the amendment that you urge does nothing but require the government to do something that it has already undertaken to do. That is why I say your amendment is otiose.

As to the quantum, there are a range of estimates. You choose for the purpose of advancing your argument, understandably, a figure at the top of the range—$319 million. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report to which I referred to last night suggests a credible range between $188 million and $390 million. That is not imprecise; it is not at all uncommon for people who place a value on economic activity to describe it by reference to a range. The Commonwealth government has committed to making a substantial contribution to those costs. Within that range, it will make a substantial contribution. What a 'substantial contribution' is is obviously a matter for discussion between government and industry. It is also a matter for internal decision within government. You yourself, Senator Ludlam, observed shrewdly that this is a matter that is at the moment part of the budget process. The government will make a judgement informed by the discussions that it has had with industry as to what proportion fairly represents a substantial contribution within that range.