I could maybe add a little bit of context. On two previous occasions the Speaker ruled that this was not a money bill, and I think that was partly because this bill was modelled on the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, which itself was ruled as not being a money bill. It also was a private member's bill.
There are some important differences between the two bills. The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act applied to railway stations that were owned by railway companies, not by the federal government, and there was no maintenance obligation in that bill. So two of the big drivers of financial impact on the federal government did not exist in that case.
The other observation, with respect to it being a money bill, is that if the government were never to designate a lighthouse under this bill, there would be no or very little cost. So on some level it's within the power of the government to control the financial implications of the bill. That's my understanding.