weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

More documents

Recommendations

Info

23 Aug 2005 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Bill 2599 The authority now takes pains to explain itself further. The report further states— Whilst such an approach is consistent with the Direction, the Authority notes that these are important issues for irrigators and that the failure to be able to address issues relating to lower bound costs perpetuates concerns relating to the appropriateness of gazetted prices for services provided by SunWater to irrigators in the Burdekin, irrespective of the Authority’s findings. Secondly, the Authority was not directed to determine the level of prices which should be levied on irrigators. That is, the Authority was not directed to reset current price paths based on current conditions or the particular circumstances of the Burdekin. Just as there is no doubt that the Queensland Competition Authority complied with the ministerial directions, there is also no doubt that the authority was hamstrung by those same directions and was prevented from addressing what many of the stakeholders saw as the predominant issue. The predominant issue was that of fair and equitable pricing. This is the weakness in the system. It is not in or part of the QCA itself. Rather, it is with how it is instructed to proceed. It can only operate within the dictated guidelines. We must remember that, while it is not subject to government direction in relation to the conduct of investigations, reports or access to services, it is subject to the written directions of the ministers in performing its functions. I support this bill because I believe that it will enhance the Queensland Competition Authority’s capabilities and ensure that it can continue to fulfil its role. However, ultimately, the integrity and credibility of the QCA lie with the ministers. If they are not held accountable and responsible, the amendments that will be passed here today will achieve nothing. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Treasurer) (3.40 pm), in reply: Let me start by thanking all members for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the National and Liberal parties for their support for the bill. This government is a reforming government, and we will not shy away from fixing problems as they arise. Problems arise, and the measure of a government’s worth is how they are responded to. That is what leadership is about as well. Let us get away from the myth that the queue of ships at the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal was due to the state government or the regulatory framework. The queue of ships was not due to the regulatory process, despite what Mr Costello and all those seeking to play pretty crude politics were saying. There was a massive spike in the market value of coal, and coalminers were sending ships to Dalrymple Bay in the hope that they would be loaded. Given the price of coal at the time, it was cheaper for them to book ships and pay demurrage than to hold off. That is basically what happened. It is not rocket science to work out exactly what was going on. Opposition speakers have tried to link these amendments with the media circus around the proposed expansion of the Dalrymple Bay coal terminal. I guess that is the nature of politics—people might as well stretch the bow as wide as they possibly can—but what they said was, frankly, nonsense. I would like to clarify for the record some gross inaccuracies by the members opposite on this issue that continue the misrepresentations of the federal government. To begin with, the amendment is proactive; it is not a reactive amendment. The amendment will only need to be used if there is a breach of the undertaking between the Queensland Competitive Authority and the access provider. It is forward looking in that sense. The member for Mirani at least got that right. He should explain that to his colleagues. However, the amendments we are dealing with today have nothing to do with that situation. This government’s record on expanding port infrastructure is second to none, and the expansion of Gladstone is a clear example of that. The member for Gladstone would be aware of that. We are spending a small fortune expanding the port facilities at Gladstone. Mrs Liz Cunningham interjected. Mr BEATTIE: That may be so, but I say to the member for Gladstone that there are alternatives. We happen to have chosen Gladstone because of its beauty—I should say ‘beauty’, because it is a beautiful city—and its natural assets as well. Ms Jarratt: Bowen’s got a good harbour, Mr Premier. Mr BEATTIE: I highlight to the member for Gladstone the competition that exists. No-one could ever accuse us of having a one-eyed view of the world. People in Gladstone have not voted for us for a long time, as the honourable member for Gladstone would know, but they have voted for us in Whitsunday and Mackay. I know that the members for Whitsunday and Mackay— Mr Wallace interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Thuringowa does not have a port, but Townsville does. That was a get-square, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Wallace: Some call it Thuringowa East. Mr BEATTIE: Thuringowa East indeed! I will get back to the script. I am being distracted here. What is conveniently forgotten by the members opposite is that the government is no longer involved in operating the Dalrymple Bay terminal. I do not know how many times we have to explain this. Again, it is fairly basic. The member for Mirani still thinks that Dalrymple Bay is still somehow linked to the Ports Corporation of Queensland. That is not correct. The government has leased the asset to a publicly listed company—that is, a private company; I say again that it is actually a private company, and ‘private’ means private not public—in what is effectively a transfer of ownership for 49 years with an option on another 50 years. It is a lease.
2600 Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill 23 Aug 2005 During the lease tender process, the coal companies asked for Dalrymple Bay to be regulated by the QCA when the asset was leased to the new private sector operator. In responding to their wishes, the government in fact agreed. Because the coal companies and Prime Infrastructure could not agree to the timing and extent of an expansion of the terminal, the parties referred the matter to the QCA. The QCA responded accordingly and, ultimately, an access price was determined. Prime now says that the expansion will commence. That is basically what happened. I would hate to disappoint the member for Warrego, but there has not been any physical expansion of the terminal over recent months. The queues have not reduced because of some phantom expansion. The member for Mount Coot-tha summed it up well when he noted the opposition cries about government inaction on a privately leased facility—a privately leased facility and, for the third time, a privately leased facility. We lease the asset to the private sector and then the hypocrites opposite say that we should go and fix it up. Well, what rot! I would like to see us charged with the responsibility of running around fixing up every private facility or private piece of infrastructure. Since when is that the go? Mr Schwarten: Every private house in Queensland. Mr BEATTIE: Members can imagine that everyone will want me, or more to the point the Minister for Housing, to come around and paint each one of their privately owned homes! I do not think the Minister for Housing would want to see them agree. I note the matters raised by the member for Gladstone and the local area water board. I will respond to what the member raised. They are not matters directly related to this bill, but I note that water is a sensitive issue and we expect the QCA to consult appropriately. That is what we would expect. In relation to the amendment concerning enforcement powers, the bill does not grant the QCA any new powers, per se. The bill ensures that existing powers are applied to all types of commercial transactions. In relation to information-sharing concerns, which the member for Gladstone raised, normal obligations imposed on public servants, imposed under the Public Service Act, will apply. Those normal obligations will apply. That applies equally to a director-general and more junior officers alike. It applies universally. Again, I highlight the relevance of that. In terms of confidentiality, in relation to the issues raised by the member for Gladstone, in essence I think the member was asking whether the confidentiality of information provided to the QCA would be jeopardised by allowing it to be shared with departments. Let me go through this again so we are clear. While the act does not allow the QCA to disclose commercially confidential information to another person without the provider’s consent, it makes exceptions for ministers, QCA board members, the Commonwealth and other state or international regulators. That is the disclosure. Notably, as these exceptions do not include Queensland regulators the QCA cannot currently share confidential information relating to the state’s rail, energy and water entities with the relevant departmental coregulators without the need to first obtain the relevant regulated entity’s consent. The amendments will address this anomaly to allow the QCA to share confidential information relating to the state’s regulated rail, energy and water entities with the relevant departmental coregulator— namely, the respective directors-general of Transport, Energy or Natural Resources and Mines—without the need to first obtain the relevant regulated entity’s consent. This will allow other Queensland regulators to make informed regulatory decisions and therefore provide the best overall regulatory outcome for industries and consumers. That basically covers all of the issues that were raised. I do not think there are any matters that were raised with me by members that I have not responded to. Again, I thank members for their contributions and I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Clauses 1 to 32, as read, agreed to. Consideration in Detail Bill read a third time. Third Reading RACING VENUES DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 9 August 2005 (see p. 2206). Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (3.50 pm): The opposition will be supporting the Racing Venues Development Amendment Bill. Under the Racing Venues Development Act 1982 trustees can be appointed to control and develop land as a racing venue and for other purposes connected with
Page 1 and 2:
PROOF ISSN 1322-0330 WEEKLY HANSARD
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents — Tuesday, 23 A
Page 5 and 6:
2536 Papers 23 Aug 2005 PAPERS PAPE
Page 7 and 8:
2538 Ministerial Statement 23 Aug 2
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18: 2548 Ministerial Statement 23 Aug 2
Page 19 and 20: 2550 Scrutiny of Legislation Commit
Page 21 and 22: 2552 Private Members’ Statements
Page 23 and 24: 2554 Questions Without Notice 23 Au
Page 33 and 34: 2564 Members’ Ethics and Parliame
Page 35 and 36: 2566 Matters of Public Interest 23
Page 45 and 46: 2576 Constitutional and Other Legis
Page 47 and 48: 2578 Transport Legislation Amendmen
Page 49 and 50: 2580 Transport Legislation Amendmen
Page 51 and 52: 2582 Housing Legislation Amendment
Page 53 and 54: 2584 Education (Queensland College
Page 55 and 56: 2586 Succession Amendment Bill 23 A
Page 57 and 58: 2588 Succession Amendment Bill 23 A
Page 59 and 60: 2590 Queensland Competition Authori
Page 67: 2598 Queensland Competition Authori
Page 71 and 72: 2602 Racing Venues Development Amen
Page 81 and 82: 2612 Plumbing and Drainage and Othe
Page 99 and 100: 2630 Child Safety Legislation Amend
Page 111 and 112: 2642 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 One pa
Page 113 and 114: 2644 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 years.
Page 115: 2646 Adjournment 23 Aug 2005 Finall
show all

weekly hansard - Queensland Parliament - Queensland Government

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?