Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

It was not a 'significant' debate, Senator Fisher, but nor was it an insignificant debate. It was a good moderate discussion.

When first drafted, we actually had inadvertently placed the word 'significantly' in, I think, part B(2) but not in part B(3) or vice versa. We then had to have the discussion as to whether to apply it as a test to both or to neither. In the end the coalition felt it is important to apply it to both. We would not want to see a situation where, especially, co-regulatory or mandatory schemes were put in place if there were only a marginal benefit. I guess that is where we would draw the distinction. We do not see that 'significantly' is a gargantuan test to leap over, but we see it as a way of making sure that we are not entering a realm where it is within the scope of this legislation to apply schemes that would only be of negligible or marginal benefit rather than of a reasonable or significant benefit.

In the end, once all of the low-hanging fruit—to borrow Senator Farrell's words—is picked, then if there is good argument and scope to revisit these definitions I am sure the parliament will be happy to do so. But I suspect it will be quite a period of time before that harvest and bounty is picked. These definitions, as applied, and the use of the word 'significantly' will ensure that we have consistency in the definitions and will ensure that where schemes are being applied they do actually make a difference; a tangible difference that people can see and that will therefore will help to improve the support and embrace of those schemes.