weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government
weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government
weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
23 Aug 2005 <strong>Queensland</strong> Competition Authority Amendment Bill 2599<br />
The authority now takes pains to explain itself further. The report further states—<br />
Whilst such an approach is consistent with the Direction, the Authority notes that these are important issues for irrigators and that<br />
the failure to be able to address issues relating to lower bound costs perpetuates concerns relating to the appropriateness of<br />
gazetted prices for services provided by SunWater to irrigators in the Burdekin, irrespective of the Authority’s findings. Secondly,<br />
the Authority was not directed to determine the level of prices which should be levied on irrigators. That is, the Authority was not<br />
directed to reset current price paths based on current conditions or the particular circumstances of the Burdekin.<br />
Just as there is no doubt that the <strong>Queensland</strong> Competition Authority complied with the ministerial<br />
directions, there is also no doubt that the authority was hamstrung by those same directions and was<br />
prevented from addressing what many of the stakeholders saw as the predominant issue.<br />
The predominant issue was that of fair and equitable pricing. This is the weakness in the system.<br />
It is not in or part of the QCA itself. Rather, it is with how it is instructed to proceed. It can only operate<br />
within the dictated guidelines. We must remember that, while it is not subject to government direction in<br />
relation to the conduct of investigations, reports or access to services, it is subject to the written<br />
directions of the ministers in performing its functions.<br />
I support this bill because I believe that it will enhance the <strong>Queensland</strong> Competition Authority’s<br />
capabilities and ensure that it can continue to fulfil its role. However, ultimately, the integrity and<br />
credibility of the QCA lie with the ministers. If they are not held accountable and responsible,<br />
the amendments that will be passed here today will achieve nothing.<br />
Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (3.40 pm), in reply: Let me<br />
start by thanking all members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the National and Liberal<br />
parties for their support for the bill. This government is a reforming government, and we will not shy<br />
away from fixing problems as they arise. Problems arise, and the measure of a government’s worth is<br />
how they are responded to. That is what leadership is about as well.<br />
Let us get away from the myth that the queue of ships at the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal was due<br />
to the state government or the regulatory framework. The queue of ships was not due to the regulatory<br />
process, despite what Mr Costello and all those seeking to play pretty crude politics were saying. There<br />
was a massive spike in the market value of coal, and coalminers were sending ships to Dalrymple Bay<br />
in the hope that they would be loaded. Given the price of coal at the time, it was cheaper for them to<br />
book ships and pay demurrage than to hold off. That is basically what happened. It is not rocket science<br />
to work out exactly what was going on. Opposition speakers have tried to link these amendments with<br />
the media circus around the proposed expansion of the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. I guess that is the<br />
nature of politics—people might as well stretch the bow as wide as they possibly can—but what they<br />
said was, frankly, nonsense.<br />
I would like to clarify for the record some gross inaccuracies by the members opposite on this<br />
issue that continue the misrepresentations of the federal government. To begin with, the amendment is<br />
proactive; it is not a reactive amendment. The amendment will only need to be used if there is a breach<br />
of the undertaking between the <strong>Queensland</strong> Competitive Authority and the access provider. It is forward<br />
looking in that sense. The member for Mirani at least got that right. He should explain that to his<br />
colleagues. However, the amendments we are dealing with today have nothing to do with that situation.<br />
This government’s record on expanding port infrastructure is second to none, and the expansion<br />
of Gladstone is a clear example of that. The member for Gladstone would be aware of that. We are<br />
spending a small fortune expanding the port facilities at Gladstone.<br />
Mrs Liz Cunningham interjected.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: That may be so, but I say to the member for Gladstone that there are alternatives.<br />
We happen to have chosen Gladstone because of its beauty—I should say ‘beauty’, because it is a<br />
beautiful city—and its natural assets as well.<br />
Ms Jarratt: Bowen’s got a good harbour, Mr Premier.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: I highlight to the member for Gladstone the competition that exists. No-one could<br />
ever accuse us of having a one-eyed view of the world. People in Gladstone have not voted for us for a<br />
long time, as the honourable member for Gladstone would know, but they have voted for us in<br />
Whitsunday and Mackay. I know that the members for Whitsunday and Mackay—<br />
Mr Wallace interjected.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: Thuringowa does not have a port, but Townsville does. That was a get-square,<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker.<br />
Mr Wallace: Some call it Thuringowa East.<br />
Mr BEATTIE: Thuringowa East indeed! I will get back to the script. I am being distracted here.<br />
What is conveniently forgotten by the members opposite is that the government is no longer<br />
involved in operating the Dalrymple Bay terminal. I do not know how many times we have to explain this.<br />
Again, it is fairly basic. The member for Mirani still thinks that Dalrymple Bay is still somehow linked to<br />
the Ports Corporation of <strong>Queensland</strong>. That is not correct. The government has leased the asset to a<br />
publicly listed company—that is, a private company; I say again that it is actually a private company, and<br />
‘private’ means private not public—in what is effectively a transfer of ownership for 49 years with an<br />
option on another 50 years. It is a lease.