RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

2282 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 31 Oct 2012
The big shortfall that I found in the budget that I wanted to raise in the estimates committee
hearing was the lack of investment in strategic infrastructure following some 20 years of neglect. The
most relevant activity of this government relating to this issue is the Royalties for the Regions program,
which is being trialled. It is widely acknowledged that this program falls grossly short of the mark in
being able to deliver anything significant, as it is a trial. Issues that I see in the Mount Isa electorate that
would be a sensible investment for this money include contributions towards land, sewerage and water
to address both the shortage of housing and the fly-in fly-out issue, which is destroying many mining
communities. Other investments include the enhancement of supply chains including rail, power and
roads, all of which are both payment for past wealth that the region has contributed to the state and
investment in the future of the region, with substantial potential sitting there waiting to yield again.
The $60 million being made available in the first year as part of the Royalties for the Regions
program will provide facilities such as swimming pools and tennis court lights, but regrettably little more.
I say this in appreciation of the government’s intention to save its way out of the current financial
situation. However, my contention is that the projects that I am advocating will provide a return over time
on that investment through jobs and industry growth and general optimism created in the economy at a
time when it is critically needed to grow our way out of this situation. The difference between frittering
away money into the economy to keep it circulating and what I am advocating is that on the back end of
such development our industries will be more competitive through enhanced supply chains and a more
competitive energy supply. This is the right direction for Queensland.
I am not talking about setting up a commission to just identify infrastructure, as Infrastructure
Australia has done in the past, but actually commit to investing in it. On this basis I put to the Deputy
Premier a pragmatic question dealing with the existing program and that was to consider employing
discretionary powers when dealing with council applications under this program. The existing proposal
requires a dollar-for-dollar commitment from councils. However, this may not see the most efficient
allocation of these funds where some smaller councils do not make it across the line with their available
funds for critical projects that are of regional significance. It was acknowledged in the response that this
is a pilot program. In my opinion, unless the program becomes more substantial and is able to deliver
real infrastructure programs, it falls well short of having any significant effect.
The other question put forward along this theme was to the Minister for Energy and Water Supply.
It disturbs me that in our forward projections for energy supply there is no consideration or even inprinciple
support for the transmission line connecting the north and mid-west with the national electricity
grid. To provide an overview of this proposal, it is a $1 billion to $1.5 billion undertaking with $345 million
already committed from the federal government over the past couple years just sitting there.
The project was originally driven by the main user. However, after passing many hurdles and with
constant support from all levels of government, the main end user chose a solution for their energy
supply to best suit themselves, much to the detriment of all other users in the towns and cities in the
region. The state government at the time were quick to remove themselves of this responsibility as well,
with Ergon following suit and also committing to this short-term solution. This proposal, dubbed the
clean energy corridor, has one critical aspect that is widely not acknowledged and was the basis for my
question—that is, the clean energy corridor proposal incorporates many clean energy sources offsetting
the commitment Queensland has for renewable energy certificates in approximately 10 years time, a
projected cost of approximately $300 million per annum. This cost could be halved with the
development of the transmission line and its associated clean energy projects. This may seem some
way off, but given the mutual benefit of offsetting this cost with the commercial benefit of energy supply
feeding into the transmission line it can be seen that this project should be viewed in a different light.
There is a shortfall of approximately $600 million at present, which ironically is close to the amount
being spent on a new concrete building in Brisbane. Renewable energy projects incorporated in the
clean energy corridor are estimated to at least halve the cost of the certificates. That is $150 million a
year once that comes into effect. If we do not build these projects what we are doing is subsidising
investment and jobs in other states. We should be investing in projects in Queensland before we invest
in other states.
(Time expired)
Mr HOLSWICH (Pine Rivers—LNP) (5.11 pm): I thank the House for this opportunity to speak
about the estimates process and about the hearings held by the State Development, Infrastructure and
Industry Committee. I think what we heard in our committee’s estimates hearing and what we have
heard again this afternoon from the Leader of the Opposition was a stark contrast between the priorities
of the Newman government and those of the floundering Labor opposition members with their ongoing
delusions of adequacy. What we saw was a government with a plan, a well-thought-out and highly
strategic plan to strengthen the Queensland economy and a plan to build our state’s future around the
four pillars of construction, resources, tourism and agriculture.