Posts

The QLD Government made it illegal to build a port they don’t own

,
The Queensland Government owns most of the major ports up and down the Queensland coast. Just when a private company was planning on building cheap ports throughout Queensland, the Queensland Government effectively made it illegal to develop ports outside the ones they already own.

In the last budget the Albanese Government cancelled the funding for the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority and for the two projects they were running – the Hells Gates Dam and the Hughenden Irrigation Project (including the Saego Dam). Clearly there will be no dams built under a government Anthony Albanese leads. This is a massive blow to North Queensland. These projects represented billions of dollars of economic growth, provided bread-winner jobs across agriculture, mining, and tertiary processing.

This leaves the Urannah Dam as the last dam proposal in Queensland, and I am sure there is no intention on the part of either the Palaszczuk or Albanese Governments to build those either.

Labor are hollowing out the bush. One Nation will get these projects moving again.

Wherever you look, the Government just gets in the way of Australia’s success.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts, do you have questions of Infrastructure Australia before we get to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility?

Senator Roberts: Yes, I do. Thank you for appearing today. Does Infrastructure Australia have any views on what roadblocks there are to port development in Queensland? I know you wouldn’t be prepared. Off the top of your head.

Mr Copp: We’re not aware of any particular barriers.

Senator Roberts: Have you done any work or any reviews on the effect of the Sustainable Ports Development Act 2015? It is Queensland legislation.

Mr Copp: No.

Senator Roberts: It appears to me that legislation is a significant roadblock to ports in our state. I don’t know if you can even build a boat ramp under that law. It completely restricts—I have formed that view after listening to an expert on this; I will explain more in a minute—port development all the way up the Queensland coast except for Gladstone, Townsville, Hay Point and Abbott Point. Do you know who owns those ports?

Mr Copp: No.

Senator Roberts: The Queensland government.

Senator McDonald: It’s part of a broader strategy. It is a Queensland government strategy from a long time ago.

Senator Roberts: They own the ports. I had a meeting with a business in my state recently based on the Gold Coast. The name of the business is SEATRANSPORT. It works internationally. It is a magnificent little firm on the Gold Coast. It is a truly incredible business, humbly creating some of the most incredible boats I’ve ever seen. They showed me a plan they had to create mini ports all the way up the Queensland coast, dozens of them. It is private investment. They have already been operating one successfully in the Gulf for 30 years. I think there are others around the country. From what I could see, it would literally unlock Far North Queensland, especially in agriculture. The Queensland government passed the Sustainable Ports Development Act that said no more ports in Queensland except those that I just listed that the state government owns. This is blatant evidence that productive infrastructure investment is being squashed so a state government can maintain a monopoly and control. Surely don’t we have to consider that an impediment to infrastructure in Australia?

Mr Copp: We haven’t done any sort of analysis of that legislation. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. My staff asked this committee yesterday. They said I could ask these questions either in infrastructure or in regional infrastructure. When I got to regional infrastructure, I couldn’t get the answers. They said to go to Infrastructure Australia and the North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority, which is now tomorrow, I understand, in the environment committee.

Chair: I’ve never been in that committee, so I can’t help you.

Senator Roberts: Do you have a list of every infrastructure project that is started or underway in Queensland outside the south-east region—in other words, regional Queensland?

Mr Copp: Mr Brogan might be able to discuss that. We have a piece of work called market capacity, which may answer that question.

Mr Brogan: We collect data from the Queensland government and other governments across Australia.

Senator Roberts: Including federal?

Mr Brogan: Including federal. It indicates information as simple as when a project would start and total investment cost, but no more detail than that, for the purposes of understanding market capacity constraints—supply and demand constraints in the market.

Senator Roberts: The labour for construction work?

Mr Brogan: Correct. One hundred per cent. That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Could we get a list of that, please, for Queensland projects outside the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Brisbane?

Mr Brogan: That data is collected with the governments through an agreement that is in place to formalise the confidentiality of the data supplied. I understand your question. I think we have to take on notice what we can provide to respect that confidential information.

Senator Roberts: I don’t want the details. I just want a list of the projects worth over $100 million or more outside the south-east metropolitan area.

Mr Copp: We’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Chair: We are scheduled to finish at 11 o’clock.

Senator Roberts: I have one more question, maybe two. There are two specific projects. One is the Cairns Western Arterial Road. The website for the department says that Infrastructure Australia has not yet assessed the business case. Has it?

Mr Copp: No.

Senator Roberts: It has not?

Mr Copp: No. It has not.

Senator Roberts: What about the Isaac and Whitsunday regions productive water supply, incorporating the Urannah Dam proposal? Do you know where we are on that?

Mr Tucker: We have a proposal on our priority list. Again, it is stage 1. It recognises that is there is an opportunity to provide high productive water in that region. We’ve had some engagement with the proponents of the Urannah Dam over the last couple of years, but a business case hasn’t been brought forward to us for detailed assessment.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. This is my last question. I haven’t seen the Queensland Great Dividing Range scheme on any list of infrastructure. Am I able to give this to Infrastructure Australia?

Chair: You would like to table it?

Senator Roberts: Yes. It’s a wonderful project. It goes over old ground, but it is entirely new. The concept is old but the project is new. With a proven business case, it provides four million megawatt hours of hydropower, which is 11 times Snowy Hydro 2.0. It is powering $2.5 billion in primary production every year at a cost of just $22 billion, which is less than Snowy Hydro. I think it is important that Infrastructure Australia is aware of this kind of proposal. It is being led by some people with track records on infrastructure.

Mr Copp: Thank you, Senator.

/2 Comments/by

Iron Boomerang: A real nation building project

,
The Iron Boomerang rail project could be one of the largest pieces of regional infrastructure Australia has seen.

It proposes building a rail line linking the abundant coalfields in Queensland with the iron ore deposits in Western Australia and establishing steel mills at either end. It would make Australia one of the leading steel producers in the world and turbocharge the economy.

Given the enormous potential being investigated, and the fact that a Senate Inquiry is currently underway, I can’t believe that this Government doesn’t seem to be interested.
/4 Comments/by

High Speed rail isn’t practical for Australia

,

High Speed Rail! It’s a great slogan for politicians in election campaigns, but it just doesn’t work for Australia.

Our cities are too small, the distances too long and geography too complex to build it cheaply enough.

Our money is much better spent on other infrastructure like dams, power stations and a national rail circuit that’s up to scratch.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak to the High Speed Rail Authority Bill 2022—or, as I prefer to call it, the ‘elect Chris Minns as New South Wales Premier bill’. It’s not a coincidence that this bill provides for the national high-speed rail network proposal to start with just one section: between Sydney and Newcastle—just in time for the New South Wales state election in the coming March. Oh, the photo opportunities and announcements! I can see them now—for example, ‘Vote Labor and we will get you to work in 40 minutes.’ What dishonesty. What treachery.

I appreciate that that the Central Coast and Hunter are now dormitory suburbs of Sydney. Every day, more than 100,000 residents use rail and road on their daily trek to Sydney for work. High-speed would be a wonderful way to make that trip. One problem with making that promise is that high-speed rail on that route is never going to happen. It’s impossible. Here’s why. The route consist of mountain ranges, massive sandstone cliffs and waterways. Unless the High Speed Authority sprinkles magic dust, there is no way it will make a straight, flat track with the solid foundations necessary to sustain high-speed rail through the Hawksbury, Central Coast and Lower Hunter.

The current discussion involves sending high-speed rail along the existing alignment through the Central Coast, through the Gosford waterfront, through residential areas to Wyong and then via YE into the lower Hunter. The area’s geography makes any other route almost impossible, at least without substantial environmental impact, meaning massive, long tunnels and cuttings through national parks and equally long and heavily engineered bridges across the frequent waterways and soft ground.

Anything can be done at a cost, although the cost here will ensure a white elephant for taxpayers that will never recover the investment. I shudder to think how much the tickets will cost, certainly more than working families can afford, the families who are being targeted with this false, deceptive promise.

While Australia does need a modern rail network connecting our capital cities, airports and major ports, high-speed rail is not the answer. The federal government last examined the possibility of building a 1,748-kilometre high-speed rail link from Brisbane to Melbourne in 2013, when the cost was estimated at $114 billion, with the Sydney-to-Newcastle section costed at $17.9 billion. At that time, by the way, the Inland Rail was costed at $4 billion. It’s now $20 billion. That’s five times higher. So I would expect this same inaccuracy factor would apply to the fast rail, costing out the Sydney-to-Hunter section alone at $90 billion in today’s dollars.

The Grattan Institute has found high-speed rail projects have little chance of passing the cost-benefit test based on the typical discount rate used for transport infrastructure of about seven per cent. Marion Terrill, the current director of the Grattan Institute’s Transport and City Program, has said:

Australia is just not suited to high-speed rail because our cities are too small and too far apart.

Too small means the passenger volume will not be sufficient to justify the capital expenditure, leading to prohibitive fares or massive government subsidies—or, most likely, both.

To illustrate this point, when New South Wales XPT trains were purchased in 1982, the intention was to create fast rail in New South Wales. The XPTs are designed to travel at just 150 kilometres per hour. So what stopped fast rail at that time was the inability to build a track capable of supporting those speeds. This is essential for safety and reliability. Our rail lines curve around too much. The Great Dividing Range provides serious hurdles to fast rail, and our waterways along the coast complicate the flat sections that we do have. For clarity, fast rail is generally speeds up to 150 kilometres per hour. High-speed rail is 250 kilometres per hour to 300 kilometres per hour. Fast rail requires entirely different and substantially more expensive rolling stock and track.

It may be feasible with a large government investment to upgrade existing rail lines on the Sydney-to-Hunter route to travel express services at fast-rail pace rather than high-speed rail pace. One Nation would strongly support immediate feasibility studies on upgrading the Sydney-to-Hunter line to fast rail since New South Wales already has the rolling stock.

Senator McKenzie will be moving an amendment to this bill that will introduce Productivity Commission oversight of proposals and a transparent reporting system. If this amendment is passed, this bill will gain the checks and balances it should have had all along, and One Nation will support it. Without those checks and balances, One Nation will oppose this bill. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and we don’t lie for any reason—certainly not to the public to get votes.

/3 Comments/by

Regional Queensland Ripped off by the South

,

Record mining and agriculture booms from Central Queensland prop up government budgets in Brisbane and Canberra. Yet those same governments rip critical infrastructure funding for dams, roads and power stations out of regional queensland. The rip-off has been going on too long and must stop, regional Queensland deserves its fair share.

/7 Comments/by

Media Release: Hells Gates Dam Business Case To Be Revealed After One Nation Motion

,

The Senate has voted in favour of a Malcolm Roberts motion this afternoon calling on the government to release a business case prepared for the Government by Townsville Enterprise Development Centre. Senator Roberts said:

“One Nation has scored a win for North Queensland with the Senate ordering the government to publish its confidential business case behind Hells Gate Dam.”

“The business case was given to the State Government in July and passed on to the Federal Government in September. The Albanese Government wants to keep the Hells Gate Dam business case a secret because they don’t want to build any dams in this country.”

“This business case will be especially embarrassing because the Labor Budget delivered last night removed $5.4 billion dollars previously allocated for the dam.”

“We need water for Queensland to thrive. This dam and many others should have been started decades ago so we can capture the La Nina rains which are currently swelling rivers before flowing straight out to sea.”

Only Labor voted against the motion in an attempt to keep the Hells Gate Dam business case secret however One Nation was successful by 40 votes to 19. The government must table the business case in the Senate no later than 9:30am tomorrow, 27 October 2022.

/4 Comments/by

Inland Rail is off track

,

Yesterday I attended a hearing into the Inland Rail project. The massively expensive project will see up to 40 heavy freight trains a day travel through southern Queensland to Acacia Ridge. (20 into Brisbane and 20 out)

Inland Rail uses passenger lines through south west Brisbane that local residents were promised would never be upgraded to heavy freight. That promise, by Labor Premier Beattie has now been broken by Premier Palaszczuk.

It is telling that neither Premier Palaszczuk nor any of her administration had the courage to front the inquiry to respond to the criticism of the route her Government is promoting.

The Mayor of Logan City Darren Power testified that within 20 years more than 50,000 residents would live with 1km of the train line, putting up with noise and vibration from 1.8km long heavy freight trains 24 hours a day.

The current plan is to terminate the line at Acacia Ridge, and not upgrade the rail link to Brisbane Port until 2040. This stupid idea will put hundreds of additional A double heavy freight trucks and related traffic onto local roads that can’t handle the traffic they have now.

Inland Rail’s preferred alignment also goes across the Condamine floodplain near Millmerran. Building a 2m railway embankment across a major floodplain is a really bad idea. The small culverts being built into the embankment will quickly block during heavy rain and flood out thousands of local residents and businesses.

The much better route through Warwick, along mostly existing freight rail lines was not seriously considered by the ARTC, this is a poor decision.

The budget for Inland Rail now stands at $20 billion and will go much higher. At this cost Inland Rail will never pay for itself. Our investigations into this and listening are going to continue. The more I hear, the more concerned I am about this project.

/by

Fast track the hybrid Bradfield scheme

, , ,

This afternoon Pauline ask Senator Cash whether the Prime Minister would fast track the hybrid Bradfield scheme, a nation-building project to help improve Queensland’s productive capacity.

While the government has committed to $72 billion in major infrastructure projects across the country, there is still no sign of the Hybrid Bradfield scheme.

Transcript

[Announcer]

Senator Hanson.

[Senator Hanson}

Thank you very much. My question is to the Minister Cash, representing the Minister for Infrastructure. On the 13th of November, 2019, the majority of coalition senators supported a notice of motion that the senate, and I quote, call on the federal government to take the necessary steps to ensure the construction of a Bradfield-type scheme can begin in Queensland as swiftly as possible.

Speaking to this motion, the government stated, and again I quote, there is no reason for the Australian government to oppose this motion. Today the prime minister announced plans to fast-track a number of infrastructure projects, yet despite the government’s plain support, there was no mention of any form of Bradfield scheme.

Why has the government chosen to leave the hybrid or new Bradfield scheme, a crucial, nation-building project they have expressed their support for, off the prime minister’s list of essential projects to be fast-tracked?

[Announcer]

The minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Senator Cash.

[Senator Cash]

Thank you, Mr President and I thank Senator Hanson for her question and in particular for acknowledging the significant announcement that the prime minister made today, as I alluded to in my previous question from Senator Antic, and the bringing forward of infrastructure projects across Australia to create around 66,000 jobs. In relation to the Bradfield scheme, I can provide you with the following information: the national water grid authority, which as you have referred to commenced operation on the 1st of October, 2019, is working with leading science agencies including the CSIRO to determine where and how water resources can be sustainably developed. This forms part of the Australian government’s commitment to invest $100 million into bringing world-best science together to identify opportunities for enhancing water supply and reliability for regional Australia. As part of this work, the authority is considering options for developing large-scale water harvesting and transfer schemes such as elements of the Bradfield scheme or hybrid versions of the Bradfield scheme to capture and transport water to both grow agricultural sector and improve drought resilience. Over the decade since it was first proposed, there have been a number of assessments on the merit of the original Bradfield scheme and more recent variations. It is important that the feasibility of these schemes are now investigated using the best available contemporary science.

[Announcer]

Senator Hanson, a supplementary question.

[Senator Hanson]

Thank you. Minister, there has been a feasibility study done on it by the Snowy Mountain Engineering Corp in 2018. Water security is crucial to all Australians especially given the horrendous drought that more than 60% of Queensland continues to endure. Why can’t the government simply give the people of Australia a firm commitment that the hybrid Bradfield scheme will be added to the prime minister’s list of projects that will be fast-tracked?

[Announcer]

Senator Cash.

[Senator Cash]

Well, thank you, Mr. President, and I would refer Senator Hanson to the answer I just gave to my previous question and my understanding is the prime minister announced certain projects today and said there’d be further announcements to come.

[Announcer]

Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question.

[Senator Hanson]

I appreciate that and I appreciate the water schemes that actually have been put in with the dams but there has been no real commitment to the hybrid Bradfield scheme which will actually bring water from going out to the ocean inland. So therefore I say to the minister, the government has been very critical of Queensland’s Labor’s failure to give a clear date on border openings, is it safe to say that because you won’t commit to a date to start this project, that the Liberal National Party have no plans to build the Bradfield scheme?

[Announcer]

Senator Cash.

[Senator Cash]

Thank you, Mr. President, and Senator Hanson I will have to reject the premise of your question, and as I said in my answer to your primary question, over the decade since it was first proposed, there have been a number of assessments on the merits of the original Bradfield scheme and more recent variations. It is important that the feasibility of these schemes are now investigated using the best available contemporary science.

/by

COVID-19 Stimulus Package must include water

,

The Federal Government’s COVID-19 stimulus packages must address how Australia can be more self-reliant in food production, and calls for a guarantee of water for farmers to plant essential crops this month.

Senator Roberts said, “COVID-19 has changed our world forever as nations like Vietnam ban exporting their home-grown rice to us, and now more than ever, we need government to prioritise food production in Australia because our basic food security is threatened.”

“Nations are now prudently keeping their own food for themselves while stupid government policies mean we are dependent on the importation of food staples that we can grow here in Australia.”

While recent rains across the Murray Darling Basin have been welcomed, farmers need the certainty of a water allocation during the season to have the confidence to plant crops.

“When harvested, not only would this winter crop create a regional monetary stimulus but would also protect us from new food shortages caused by countries’ COVID-19 export restrictions,” stated Senator Roberts.

Absurdly, Australia already relies on importing cereals like wheat and rice and now COVID-19 trade restrictions means even durum wheat used for pasta has become impossible to source.

“It is in Australia’s national interest to prioritise water to farmers to improve our farming productive capacity, that has been damaged by successive Liberal and Labor governments who have given our competitive advantage away to overseas,” added Senator Roberts.

Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian farmers have received zero general security water allocations for irrigation in the last 3 years. The Murray Darling Basin Authority has chosen instead to water forests unnecessarily and send irrigation water out to sea in South Australia.

“I call on our Governments to guarantee the release of 1000gl of water for irrigation, to give our farmers confidence to plant a full winter cereal crop.” “The COVID-19 crisis has given yet another reason to reset the Murray Darling Basin plan, with a focus on sensible environmental practices and on growing and protecting the productive capacity of regional Australia,” declared Senator Roberts.

200404-COVID-19-Stimulus-Package-must-include-water-for-farmers

/by