weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government
weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government
weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
23 Aug 2005 <strong>Queensland</strong> Competition Authority Amendment Bill 2597<br />
Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (3.22 pm): With pleasure I rise to support the <strong>Queensland</strong><br />
Competition Authority Amendment Bill. From the outset I would like to talk a little about the twin ports of<br />
Dalrymple Bay and Hay Point, as they are in my electorate. There is some confusion from time to time,<br />
and the ports are confused one to the other, and I would like to allay that confusion. Dalrymple Bay is<br />
owned by the Ports Corporation. It currently exports about 53 million tonnes of coal per year. With<br />
upgrades in the next three to four years, the expectation is that it will export in the vicinity of 85 million to<br />
90 million tonnes per year.<br />
The Hay Point terminal, side by side to the south, is owned and operated by BHP Billiton and<br />
partners. It exports currently in the vicinity of 35 million tonnes. It is currently upgrading its facility to<br />
export somewhere between 65 million and 70 million tonnes in the next two to three years. I note that<br />
the Premier was there recently when one billion tonnes of coal had just been exported through Hay<br />
Point. Hay Point was obviously the first port to be established in that area.<br />
There has been much talk about 60-plus ships anchored off the ports. That is a fact. Some of<br />
those ships were obviously anchored there for BHP Billiton, but mostly those ships were tied up to<br />
export coal through Dalrymple Bay. The issues were numerous and rather complicated. At that time<br />
there was a need to export. There was a requirement for a lot of coal to be shipped offshore—there was<br />
a huge demand. Quite a number of ships were being directed to the port without any prior knowledge or<br />
without being ordered to carry coal. That maximised the number of ships out there. Quite a number of<br />
those, as I have said, were turning up from time to time on the off-chance that they might be loaded over<br />
a period of time. That exacerbated the whole issue, and it became national news, and international<br />
news for that matter.<br />
Members of parliament will recollect that probably four years ago the <strong>Queensland</strong> government,<br />
through the Ports Corporation, leased Dalrymple Bay to Babcock and Brown and, more importantly, to<br />
its offshoot, which was called Prime Infrastructure. It is interesting to note that Prime Infrastructure has<br />
reverted to the original parent company of Babcock and Brown. That lease was for 51 years, and the<br />
upfront payment on demand was about $580 million for the 51 years. I was not privy to the contract, as<br />
members would be well aware, but I understand that there was a requirement for the infrastructure at<br />
Dalrymple Bay to be kept in an acceptable condition over the period of the lease and that, when the<br />
lease options were taken up for the other 49 years, there would be a sign-off on the state of the<br />
infrastructure on site.<br />
I would have thought that within the contract there would be a requirement for Prime<br />
Infrastructure to upgrade the infrastructure in line with the demand by the users. The user group is<br />
comprised of a number of companies that export out of Dalrymple Bay, and they are numerous.<br />
Obviously, six or eight months ago, when those ships were sitting off the port, the users were<br />
demanding a greater capacity through the port. The port was keen to access the coal boom and export<br />
more coal. The customers were desperate to get coal and were paying hugely inflated prices for spot<br />
cargoes of coal. So there was a willingness of all parties, I believe, to come to an agreement as quickly<br />
as possible.<br />
My understanding is that the problem came about when QCA became involved and could not<br />
make a decision on a price to the users. Indeed, off the top of my head, there was a dispute for probably<br />
close to a year over what the users should pay to utilise the port and what the port required to upgrade<br />
its infrastructure. Pleasingly, that dispute has now been overcome, and there is a clear plan to upgrade<br />
the port over a number of stages over the next two to three years. Indeed, estimates vary. It appears<br />
that somewhere between $900 million and $1.5 billion could be spent at Dalrymple Bay to upgrade it to<br />
export 85 million to 90 million tonnes per year.<br />
That brings us to the issue of the rail links between the coalmines to the west and the port<br />
facilities. Currently there is a dual track from Moranbah to Hay Point or Dalrymple Bay. The train traffic<br />
on that line is quite substantial now. Sooner or later it will get to the stage where it will be impossible to<br />
put more coal on the line. There is some talk of building another access line to the south of the current<br />
dual line because that line has to come down Connors Range, which is quite steep. Some members of<br />
parliament will recollect that there was a substantial derailment at Black Mountain some years ago when<br />
both lines were closed for quite a considerable time.<br />
It is just a matter of time before there is another disaster on the range. Due to the number of trains<br />
travelling the track, it is becoming very difficult to maintain the track. I speak regularly with railway<br />
maintenance workers on the line and they are saying that the line has never been in worse condition.<br />
With that in mind, it is just a matter of time before there is another derailment that will close the line to<br />
the port for some period of time. Let us hope that none of the drivers are hurt in the episode.<br />
That brings to mind the point raised by the member for Gregory in relation to the missing link.<br />
Currently there is a line that connects Abbot Point to Newlands, and that is a non-electrified line.<br />
Newlands and Abbot Point are under capacity, particularly Abbot Point, and the missing link has the<br />
opportunity of lifting the accessibility to extra coal through that port fairly easily. However, there is a need<br />
to join the missing link, as it is called, between South Walker and Newlands. About 60 to 70 kilometres<br />
of line has to be built and there will have to be some upgrades to make that happen. I understand that<br />
there is an infrastructure task force looking at that currently. However, it will not happen tomorrow and it