RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2284 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 31 Oct 2012 Premier for what he has been doing, we should applaud the fact that we are providing, through this budget, appropriate support to regional members of this House to enable them to hold high executive office within this state. I believe that this House should support that position. Having said that, we did move on to what I thought the real role of the committee was and that was to understand where the government is heading in the area of state development, infrastructure and planning. In my area of planning reform we were able to inform the committee of the great steps that we have been able to take since we were elected to make sure that our planning system is made smoother, is made more transparent and is made easier for people to access. We have done things such as introducing the temporary state planning policy called Planning for Prosperity. That planning policy requires government departments and local governments, in preparing town plans and in making planning decisions, to not only look at all the other range of state planning policies that there are—and these are generally cast in the negative, ‘You won’t do this. You won’t do that’—but also ensure that their decisions provide for the economic wellbeing and advancement of their communities. That needs to be one of the key features balanced in the whole planning process. The Deputy Premier has promulgated the Planning for Prosperity temporary state planning policy and it is already making a difference to the way in which decisions are made within the planning system in this state. We are moving towards a single state planning policy that will be easier to come to grips with, will not have the complicated provisions of the present 14 or 15 state planning policies and will provide for higher level planning requirements and not prescriptive requirements as are presently in the suite of state planning policies. We have lowered referral triggers. These are the triggers that cause planning applications to come up from local government to the state government where there is a state interest involved. We are requiring our own agencies to put their planning requirements upfront into town plans and regional plans, and not to be involved in each and every planning application as it comes before councils. The departments have done a great job in reducing those triggers. Our advice is that 1,500 applications that would have come to us last year will not come to us this year because those triggers have been reduced and there is no need for state involvement at the individual planning application level. There is statutory regional planning, into which the Deputy Premier is taking a great interest and putting a lot of effort. That is going to change the face of planning within this state. There is the reform of the Sustainable Planning Act through legislation that is presently before the House. We look forward to the report of the committee that has examined that legislation. That gives us another great opportunity to improve our planning system and to make it, as the Premier has required it to be, the best in Queensland. I was pleased to be able to present to the committee and I look forward to its report being accepted by this House. Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (5.20 pm): Firstly, I thank the committee chair, the member for Mirani, for allowing me the opportunity to ask questions during the estimates hearing. I bring to the attention of the House a number of concerns that the opposition has regarding the appropriation for and management of the Energy and Water Supply portfolio. The opposition holds concerns that the Newman government is planning to privatise electricity assets in the future. Under questioning, the minister was unable to give assurances that the government would not seek a mandate from the people of Queensland for the sale of electricity assets. Despite the minister referring to long-term planning in the sector—30 years—he seemed not to have given any thought to the issue of privatisation or was unwilling to share his thoughts with the committee. It certainly appears that Ergon Energy and Energex are being prepared for a potential sale. Only eight days after the estimates hearing took place, a decision by Ergon Energy to cut 500 jobs was announced in the media. During the hearing, I asked the CEO of Ergon Energy how many jobs would be lost at the company. That question was taken on notice as the information was not readily available. We are yet to receive a response. Common sense tells you that the idea to sack 500 workers did not simply pop into the heads of the board and executives of Ergon Energy only the day after the estimates hearing or that the plans were finalised within the one-week period between the estimates hearing and the media announcement. In light of the information that has been made public since the hearing, the answer given on the day was very disappointing. We now have to question whether similar job losses have been planned at Powerlink and Energex. During the hearing, I asked the minister a series of questions about his review of the bulk water price path in South-East Queensland. On 13 April the minister announced that the government would conduct an immediate review of the bulk water price path and committed to take options for a new price path back to cabinet for decision by the end of May. In his answers to questions, the minister confirmed that this deadline had not been met. We now know that the review has been referred to an interdepartmental committee.
31 Oct 2012 Appropriation (Parliament) Bill; Appropriation Bill 2285 The minister’s answer to non-government question on notice 15 confirmed that a review of sorts had been undertaken. However, its outcome was not a new bulk water price path, but rather a determination that the government’s election promise of an $80 water rebate would need to be funded from consolidated revenue, instead of through other savings as promised. The actual review of bulk water prices will not be completed until early 2013, which is much later than the minister’s initial intention to report back to cabinet by the end of May. The minister has raised community expectations and has been unable to meet them. I also asked about a statement in the regional budget statements that residents across the state would enjoy water savings whenever they ‘turn on their taps’. After being asked specifically whether residents in every region would receive savings on their water bills as indicated in the regional budget statements, the minister refused to comment on the documents and could not confirm that the promised savings would eventuate. That this was a typographical error would have sufficed. It was also revealed that the LNP’s election policy to repay water grid assets over a 40-year price path rather than the current 20 years will, in effect, double the level of peak debt incurred. The Costello Commission of Audit states that the peak debt under the current repayment path will be $3.1 billion in 2016-17. However, the minister’s answer to non-government question on notice No. 14 revealed that the change to a 40-year repayment path would effectively double the level of debt, with the peak of $6.8 billion occurring in 2029-30. The LNP election commitment was to adopt a 40-year price path. This policy has now been shown to be poorly thought out, ineffective and one that will actually increase the cost of water for Queenslanders. The modelling for the cost of the LNP’s election commitment to save every household $120 on their electricity bill was revealed to be simplistic and calculated based on publicly available information. The minister has yet to provide a satisfactory explanation of the amount required to ensure every household saves $120. The allocation of $63 million suggests that slightly more than 500,000 households would be able to share a $120 saving. The fact that there are more than 1.83 million households on tariff 11 suggests that there will be a considerable shortfall in funding and that not every household will receive a $120 saving. I place on record these concerns and I hope that the minister can address some of the issues the opposition has raised. I ask him for assurances that there will be no future privatisations or job losses in the energy sector and to guarantee that the LNP will not double the water grid debt and impose higher water prices on households. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.25 pm): During the State Development, Infrastructure and Industry Committee’s estimates hearing, a number of issues were raised and I will touch on a few of them today. First of all, I congratulate the committee secretariat for the wonderful job they have done in supporting the committee. I also acknowledge the work of the chair and other committee members. I thank Hansard and the parliamentary attendants for making the estimates process run as smoothly as possible. In answer to question on notice No. 11, the Deputy Premier said that the Waratah Coal’s China First rail corridor project is still being considered. This means that the LNP government’s position is unchanged from that of the previous government. It raises questions as to why, in his media release of 6 July 2012, the Deputy Premier was so vague when mentioning a project that has been promoted by a significant LNP donor. The media release entitled ‘Two rail corridors defined for Galilee Basin’ was framed to imply that the government was considering only two railway lines. However, as confirmed by the Deputy Premier in his answer to question on notice No. 11, approval for a third line being promoted by an LNP donor is still being considered. When the Deputy Premier was asked why his media statement was not clear about the fact that more than two rail corridor approvals are being considered, he stated that— I can’t understand how the member would reach the conclusion that I did not make it clear. The Deputy Premier went on to say that his reference to two rail corridors referred to the state using compulsory acquisition powers only in relation to these corridors. That is different to allowing the approval of only two rail corridors. The Deputy Premier has been unclear on this matter. The Deputy Premier admitted that he had a one-on-one meeting with the Galilee rail proponents and that he did not trust the departmental staff with commercial issues. The Deputy Premier has not specified what ‘commercial issues’ are not in the ambit of the Office of the Coordinator-General and other senior departmental officers. It has been a longstanding practice for ministers for state development to involve departmental staff in meetings with proponents, rather than conducting one-onone engagement. It is particularly concerning that the Deputy Premier admitted to having a one-on-one meeting with Professor Clive F Palmer, a significant LNP donor. The Deputy Premier also refused to rule out more one-on-one meetings on projects being promoted by LNP donors in the future.
Page 1 and 2: PROOF ISSN 1322-0330 RECORD OF PROC
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents — Wednesday, 31
Page 5 and 6: 31 Oct 2012 Legislative Assembly 22
Page 7 and 8: 31 Oct 2012 Privilege 2251 Madam SP
Page 9 and 10: 31 Oct 2012 Tabled Papers 2253 Surv
Page 11 and 12: 31 Oct 2012 Questions Without Notic
Page 23 and 24: 31 Oct 2012 Appropriation (Parliame
Page 39: 31 Oct 2012 Appropriation (Parliame
Page 53 and 54: 31 Oct 2012 Classification of Compu
Page 55 and 56: 31 Oct 2012 South East Qld Water (R
Page 57 and 58: 31 Oct 2012 Weapons and Other Legis
Page 91 and 92:
31 Oct 2012 Appropriation (Parliame
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
31 Oct 2012 Adjournment 2347 Early
Page 105 and 106:
31 Oct 2012 Adjournment 2349 School
Page 107 and 108:
31 Oct 2012 Adjournment 2351 During
show all

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - Queensland Parliament ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?