Long term leases [was Asset sales?]

[ozbob]

[ozbob]

Twitter

John Taylor ‏@JTQld 1 minute ago

The assets the Qld Govt intends to lease if the electorate says it can @abcnews

[ozbob]

Final plan

--> http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/

[ozbob]

>> http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/Strong_Choices_Final_Plan_Web.pdf

[ozbob]

p. 41 http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/Strong_Choices_Final_Plan_Web.pdf

Fund Allocation
Rural and Regional Roads Fund $1.5 Billion
South East Queensland Roads Fund $1.5 Billion
Public Transport Rail Infrastructure Fund $1 Billion
Bus and Train Project $1 Billion
Future Schools Fund $1 Billion
Rural and Regional Economic Development Fund $700 Million
Local Government Co-Investment Fund $500 Million
Future Fund (Natural Disasters) $500 Million
Entrepreneurial and Innovation Fund $500 Million
Community Hospitals Fund $300 Million
Cultural Infrastructure Fund $100 Million
Total Package $8.6 Billion
Fund Allocation
Strong Choices Cost of Living Fund $3.4 Billion

[ozbob]

The strong choices ' Cost of living fund ' seems like a way to buy votes prior to the election.

Much prefer to see more infrastructure spending with some relief but heck $3 billion? 


STAND CLEAR -  PORK BARRELS ROLLING DOWN!

[ozbob]

p. 43  http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/Strong_Choices_Final_Plan_Web.pdf

Public Transport Rail Infrastructure
Fund - $1 billion
The Brisbane urban passenger task is forecast to grow by
2.41% per annum between 2011 and 2030 along with the
expected increase in population. City Train and Travel Train
services that connect communities with Brisbane and other
regional centres will require expansion. The Public Transport
Rail Infrastructure Fund will provide funding for new and
upgrade of existing Public Transport Rail Infrastructure. The
projects considered under this fund should:
• Lead to job creation through construction or providing
connections to work;
• Help communities become economically sustainable and
resilient; and
• Improve liveability and amenity of communities, making
them more attractive, safer places in which to live and work.

Bus and Train Project Initial Funding -
$1 billion
The BaT (Bus and Train) project is a new 5km north-south
tunnel that will deliver rail and bus together in a world-first
design. It combines a railway and a busway in a single,
double-decked, 15m-wide tunnel beneath the Brisbane River
and Brisbane's central business district (CBD). The project
tackles Brisbane's major public transport capacity challenges:
the Merivale Bridge, the Cultural Centre bus precinct, Central
Station and the Captain Cook Bridge.
The BaT project will run from Dutton Park in the south to
Victoria Park at Spring Hill in the north with new underground
stations at Woolloongabba, George Street and Roma Street.
The tunnel will connect with busways and rail lines north and
south of the Brisbane River.
The project is expected to cost about $5 billion, with $1
billion to be contributed for construction of the tunnel by the
State Government and the balance to be sourced through
arrangements with the private sector, with the State to pay an
availability fee over the life of the tunnel. The proposals will be
subject to a rigorous cost–benefit analysis.

[ozbob]

JOINT STATEMENT
Premier
The Honourable Campbell Newman

Treasurer and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Tim Nicholls

Asset leasing plan will reduce debt and create jobs

The Queensland Government's $80 billion debt would be reduced and funds would be freed up for job creating infrastructure under the final Strong Choices plan to lease some government-owned assets.

Premier Campbell Newman said the Government had listened to Queenslanders and responded to their feedback about retaining their stake in public assets.

"We have listened to Queenslanders concerns and, in response, the Government has decided not to sell assets," Mr Newman said.

"We have had an in-depth discussion about these issues in the Cabinet and the party room today and we have agreed to a plan to reduce debt and build infrastructure that will potentially create up to 25,000 jobs."

Treasurer Tim Nicholls said Queenslanders had made it clear they wanted the Government to deal with the $80 billion debt problem, but they also wanted the Government to retain control over the assets.

"Leasing some assets is the strongest and smartest choice because it will generate the funds needed to bring the State's debt back under control, while ensuring Queenslanders always retain ownership," Mr Nicholls said.

"Under our plan the Government would write strict lease conditions to ensure Queenslanders' interests were upheld.

"The leases would be for 50 years with an option to extend for a further 49 years and would include conditions around the appropriate use of land and the assets, safety requirements and service levels."

Mr Newman said the Government would also continue payments to the electricity companies to keep prices for regional Queenslanders in line with prices in the south-east.

"Importantly, this is a plan for Queensland's future," he said.

"By reducing our debt we can free up funds to create jobs and build the infrastructure our growing State needs."

The Government now proposes to offer for lease:

    the Ports of Gladstone and Townsville (with the Mt Isa Rail line)
    commercial water pipelines of SunWater
    electricity generators Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy Ltd
    electricity transmission and distribution companies Energex, Ergon and Powerlink
    a range of non-core business activities currently run by the corporations

Mr Nicholls said the Government had listened to advice of independent experts, Queensland's Treasury and Queensland Treasury Corporation to ensure the Strong Choices final plan would also deliver the best financial outcome for Queenslanders.

The plan is expected to yield $37 billion.

Those funds would be allocated as follows:

    $25 billion to reduce State debt from $80 billion to a manageable $55 billion, with annual interest payments reduced from $4 billion to $2.7 billion - a saving of $1.3 billion
    $8.6 billion to establish the Strong Choices Future Investment Program, which will create 11 separate funds, each of which is dedicated to supporting infrastructure considered vital to economic growth, jobs and vibrancy of regional communities
    $3.4 billion in a dedicated fund to relieve cost of living pressure for Queenslanders

"None of these proposals will be implemented until the Government has received a mandate for this methodical and disciplined plan at the next State election," he said.

To view the plan visit www.StrongChoices.qld.gov.au

[ENDS] 7 October 2014

[ozbob]

... "None of these proposals will be implemented until the Government has received a mandate for this methodical and disciplined plan at the next State election," he said ...

All moot ..   

[red dragin]

Will the assets be maintained to the same level, or allowed to be run into the ground and need replacing at the end of the lease by the government.

And is that $37 billion over 50 years ($740 mill) or 99 years ($374 mill)? 

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> LNP unanimously endorses 99-year asset lease plan

The Newman government could be in line to offer up some pre-election sweeteners after Liberal National Party MPs unanimously endorsed a plan to offer up state assets for long-term leases.

All LNP MPs were called back to Brisbane on Tuesday to vote on the plan - finalised over the weekend - to lease state assets on 99-year contracts, following its endorsement earlier by cabinet.

Premier Campbell Newman said the so-called Strong Choices plan would raise $37 billion, about $3.4 billion of which would go towards a "cost of living relief fund".

Just what that fund would entail would be revealed at a later date, presumably prior to the 2015 election.

"You'll have to wait and see," he said ....

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/lnp-unanimously-endorses-99year-asset-lease-plan-20141007-10rjy1.html

Money that could be used for additional important infrastructure to be used to buy votes.

Sorry guys, the ' final plan ' is an absolute con ...

There is no rigorous analysis of loss of revenue from the assets vs. leasing income.   None.

I expect economists to get to work on this and challenge many of the assumptions.

Sad state of polyticks ..

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Newman's new electoral slush fund

A $3.4 BILLION cost-of-living slush fund will be at the Newman Government's disposal during next year's election after LNP MPs unanimously backed a massive privatisation plan.

Electricity, water and transport prices are likely to be among the rising costs in the crosshairs of the Government which has promised to spend the dedicated fund "fiscally responsibly".

The new fund was unveiled yesterday after an extraordinary LNP party room meeting was called to make a final decision on an asset sales plan to take to the election, expected in March ....]A $3.4 BILLION cost-of-living slush fund will be at the Newman Government's disposal during next year's election after LNP MPs unanimously backed a massive privatisation plan.

Electricity, water and transport prices are likely to be among the rising costs in the crosshairs of the Government which has promised to spend the dedicated fund "fiscally responsibly".

The new fund was unveiled yesterday after an extraordinary LNP party room meeting was called to make a final decision on an asset sales plan to take to the election, expected in March ....

Crikey, even the Couriermail is calling it a  ' slush ' fund ...  not sure if this blatant con will get past the community though ...

Interesting days ..

[ozbob]

Sent to all outlets:

8th October 2014

The ' Final plan ' ... some comments

Greetings,

With the appropriate crafted stage management and spin we now have the ' Final plan ' ...  http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/Strong_Choices_Final_Plan_Web.pdf

The final plan is contingent on the outcome of the forthcoming state election, and then long lead times for process.  So these projects, if ever, are years away.

What is missing is a rigorous analysis of loss of revenue from the assets to be leased versus leasing income.  No  analysis at all.

The so called ' Strong Choices Cost of Living Fund ' is even being called a ' slush fund ' by the Couriermail!
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/lnp-backs-newman-governments-assets-plan/story-fnihsrf2-1227082930078

RAIL Back On Track members were hopeful of some positive announcements, particularly track amplification of the Sunshine Coast line, and a commitment to sort out the failed fare system for SEQ.

An equitable and affordable fare system for SEQ will actually save money.  That would be proper process, not massive ' electoral pork barrels '.

Is the cost of living fund really just a mechanism to buy votes for the election?

Some cost of living relief is needed, but to simply fritter away billions when there is much infrastructure needed seems foolhardy.

Don't forget to touch off!

Best wishes
Robert

Robert Dow
Administration
admin@backontrack.org
RAIL Back On Track http://backontrack.org

[#Metro]

General Comment

I hear McDonald's is profitable, should the Queensland Government buy McDonalds with citizen money for the purpose of generating future income by acquiring more assets?

There may well be a legitimate reason for using companies as investment vehicles to invest surpluses or similar future funds by the state (i.e. Queensland Investment Corporation). But that doesn't require outright ownership - if revenue was really the reason, the gov't would sell its assets and then use the cash to go to a fund manager and put that money into a managed fund where the money is used to buy a basket of shares and other diversified assets both here in Australia and abroad...this reduces risk and also increases opportunity as the most lucrative things may not be in Queensland. This is how the Future Fund works at federal level.

http://www.futurefund.gov.au/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government_Future_Fund

[ozbob]

Yes, previous operators did in fact run the rail network into the ground in Melbourne.  They simply siphoned off profits and did little real maintenance.  It was so obvious.  It has taken a lot of catch up funding to sort it, and it still needs much work.

Track infrastructure standard of Queensland Rail is first class compared to Vic and to a lesser extent NSW.  The first thing to suffer once you hive off rail is maintenance.  Been shown time and time again.

The slush fund is $3Billion RTT.  A lot of pork.  That could be used in better ways ...

[ozbob]

To get the public onside with these leasing proposals, detailed cost benefit analysis must be provided.

Presently, they are asking all to accept all this as an ' act of faith '.  Sorry, that does not cut the mustard at all.

[ozbob]

Privatization of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne:
What Went Wrong?

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parliament.vic.gov.au%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fdocuments%2Fcouncil%2FSelect_Committees%2FTrains%2FSubmissions%2FSCTS_18_Att_3.pdf&ei=nDo0VMO-HuLCigLz_oGIBA&usg=AFQjCNFQTTugd-faBS4PmXCMX2NqpegrYA&sig2=9tVAawkdW4kH2fPtvfLbTg&bvm=bv.76943099,d.cGE

[ozbob]

I think this is all pointing to an early election.  I have little doubt about that.

Early 2015, February looking good.

[#Metro]

Bankruptcy is not a failure of market processes any more than an election causing a change of government is a failure of democracy, requiring the abolition of voting. Bankruptcy is what removes poorly performing organisations and permits the transfer of assets to competitors, in this case the creation of one train and one tram operator.

What is interesting is the high forecasts for patronage in Melbourne actually did eventuate, they just got the timing wrong by about 10 years. In addition, the Victorian Government did reconsider operating the networks itself, and modelled the costs of public operation (PSB: Public Sector Benchmark) and ultimately decided not to do that. What is very interesting is that even after blue team lost office, red team also refused to return the networks to the public sector as well.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PARTNERSHIPS. March 2005
http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/RailFranchsingOverview.pdf

These high forecasts were a partly a result of the buoyant growth rates in the UK rail industry at the
time, and partly because of an intensely competitive bidding environment which led to "deal fever".
They were made by foreign bidders who had little local knowledge and who were basing their
forecasts on experience of conditions in south-east England, where very high patronage growth was
occurring at the time. Bidders failed to take account of the very different conditions in the Victorian
transport industry, including:

It simply wasn't possible to replicate the British conditions in Victoria and reap huge cost reductions
and patronage increases through changes to work practices and marketing. The franchisees had
bid for fixed base contract payments from the State, and these reduced sharply after the first few
years as revenue increases and cost reductions were forecast to kick in. When these didn't
eventuate, the payment reductions put the franchisees in a potentially dire financial position

One of the silly things is that I think they paid operators according to 'growing patronage' this is a big no-no!!
I don't even think they had a proper co-ordinating authority like PTV, so efficiencies were lost there too. The GST came in,
increasing ticket prices as well.

Passenger Growth Incentive regime
The Franchise Agreement included an incentive regime designed to reward franchisees for
growing patronage (as reflected in farebox revenue), under which the State would make
incentive payments to a franchisee whose farebox revenue was in excess of a specified
threshold amount. However, the practical effect of this was simply to magnify the
franchisees' revenue shortfall when the expected patronage increases failed to materialise

[ozbob]

This is the game IMO.  LNP reckon they have a large enough majority to get this over the line.  They fully appreciate they will suffer collateral damage (loss of seats) but figure the massive majority at present is enough to weather that.

Details of the various infrastructure projects etc. will be used for the election campaign, with pork promises from the $3B cost of living fund.

The cost of living fund to buy votes.   More fare cuts (danger, should be proper fare and network reform),  bigger concessions for power, licence freezes and so forth.

[#Metro]

The DOI paper is interesting reading, goes into the maintenance quite a bit, things to think about:

• Infrastructure maintenance regime
The innovative output-based infrastructure maintenance and renewal regime (based on
condition indices) was designed to provide the franchisees with flexibility and incentives to
be efficient. Unfortunately, the methodology used in assessing the condition of the
infrastructure was fundamentally flawed, and the franchisees had no way of knowing
whether their works were sufficient to meet the condition index targets or not. This is
examined in detail in Section 4.4.1.

Connex Australia had an extraordinarily complex internal structure, represented by the diagram on page 37. http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/RailFranchsingOverview.pdf

3.2.1 Basic structure and rationale
The franchise structure adopted by Connex is significantly more complex than that of Yarra Trams.
Connex entered into a joint venture with Alstom which allowed Connex to focus on delivering
passenger services while effectively outsourcing its infrastructure and rolling stock maintenance
obligations.

Under the original franchise arrangements, Connex contracted maintenance of infrastructure and
rolling stock to Alstom through a single homogeneous contract (the "AMPA"). Although the AMPA
transferred a large measure of risk to Alstom, this simple "purchaser/supplier" arrangement led to
difficulties when Connex sought changes to the maintenance arrangements, as the AMPA provided
little flexibility to alter scope or specifications. This created a disconnection between operations and
maintenance that prevented Connex adapting maintenance to improve operational performance and
led to conflict between Connex and Alstom.

Section 4 is the most interesting... next post...

[#Metro]

Well worth a read... goes right down into the nuts and bolts of how everything worked (or didn't).
---
Section 4.4
http://ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/RailFranchsingOverview.pdf

Vertical integration of the rail franchises provides many benefits, particularly in
relation to prevention of blame-passing when delays or accidents occur. However, rail
assets tend to have extremely long effective lives (over 50 years for a large proportion
of assets). For this reason, there are few intrinsic incentives for franchisees to
maintain and renew infrastructure to a high standard when they are custodians for only a
short time. Five-year franchises further increased the importance of an adequate oversight
regime. Without adequate safeguards, franchisees could run their networks safely for five
years while spending only minimal amounts on infrastructure maintenance and renewal, by
building up a backlog of maintenance work for the future. Clearly this was undesirable,
and in the absence of commercial incentives on franchisees to perform high-quality
infrastructure maintenance, contractual safeguards were necessary.

The paper then goes into the details about how infrastructure maintenance was done - and
the problems with the method the government had chosen to use. My point here is that it is
not just a case of private operators - there are two agents, the state and the privates and how the
interaction interface between these two agents is structured is critical.

This section dealt with how one method of maintaining the infrastructure specified in the contracts by the state caused
problems on the ground, and how scrapping that and replacing it with a new model changed things.

"the survey methodology was subjective and partial, with assessment open to high levels of
subjectivity. This made it difficult to replicate the initial survey with sufficient
reliability."

"the methodology was extremely complicated, making it hard for all parties to understand
and leaving it open to "gaming" by franchisees (eg, spending in areas which would maximise
condition index benefits rather than be the most appropriate for renewal); "

The old method of asset surveys was scrapped in favour of an asset management plan system
whereby invoices were sent to the Transport Department for reimbursement.  Claims on the
escrow account are made through the submission of an invoice to PTD at the end of each
month for works set out in the AWP, along with any supporting material required to
demonstrate the legitimacy of the claim. PTD then transfers money into the franchisee's
account for direct costs of works only (not corporate overheads), up to a maximum amount
each month.

Since AMP works are binding on the franchisee, any cost overruns (ie, if the
AWP costs more than is available in the escrow account) must be met by the franchisee.
However, in order to reduce the opportunity for franchisees to save money by reducing the
quality of infrastructure works, any surplus  funds left in the escrow account at the end of the franchise period
will return to the State would return to the state

[ozbob]

http://annastaciapalaszczukmp.com.au/2014/10/07/qld-mums-and-dads-to-pay-for-qlds-biggest-ever-asset-sell-off-under-lnp/

QLD MUMS AND DADS TO PAY FOR QLD'S BIGGEST EVER ASSET SELL-OFF UNDER LNP
Post on 7 October 2014 by Annastacia Palaszczuk

Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said Campbell Newman's record asset sales program would mean higher electricity prices and more job cuts.

"Asset sales are one of the major reasons why Campbell Newman's leadership is toxic," Ms Palaszczuk said.

"This Premier has promised multiple times not to sell-off the state's electricity network, yet today's he's broken those promises and is pushing ahead with it.

"That means that Campbell Newman and every single one of his MPs is supporting higher electricity prices, more job losses, and less revenue to be spent on schools and hospitals.

"This is the biggest asset sell-off in Queensland history and it will be mums and dads that pay the price."

Ms Palaszczuk said the LNP arrogantly expected Queenslanders to believe that long term leases are somehow different to sales.

"By Tim Nicholls' own words in 2010, a lease is as good as selling the farm," she said.

"Campbell Newman now expects people to believe weasel words and support another broken promise from the LNP.

"People should get on the phone and let their local LNP MPs know they've got it wrong and are insulting Queenslanders' intelligence in the process.

"The LNP has already spent millions on bankers and lawyers preparing these assets for sale.

"This plan was happening whether Queenslanders wanted it or not because asset sales are the only plan the LNP has.

"The Premier himself said only two years ago he wouldn't sell off our electricity assets because he didn't believe in selling monopoly assets to the private sector.

"He has betrayed Queenslanders today.

"The choice at the next election is clear. The LNP will sell your assets, Labor won't."

[ozbob]

Twitter

QLD Gov Media Office ‏@QGovMO

.@TimNichollsMP: We will be announcing the @StrongChoices cost of living program details in coming weeks. #qldpol

[ozbob]

Twitter

Shane Doherty ‏@ShaneDoherty9 5m

@TimNichollsMP confirms billions coming from asset leases will take 5 years to get #9News #qldpol

[ozbob]

^



Oops, election changing clanger?

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Queensland voters left in dark about $3.4b fund

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Strong Choices gives rise to 'pork-barelling': Labor

[ozbob]

Appears an announcement of the what '$3billion dollars cost of living fund aka buy votes at any cost' will be spent on is imminent ...

[ozbob]

Appears an announcement of the what '$3billion dollars cost of living fund aka buy votes at any cost' will be spent on is imminent ...

Twitter

Shane Doherty ‏@ShaneDoherty9

Govt about to announce where the cost of living fund will be spent. Hint: #9News is famous for hammering them on it. Details soon #qldpol

==============

Twitter

Team Syvret ‏@PSyvret

@ShaneDoherty9 please tell me this isn't one off sale proceeds going to what is effectively recurrent spending?

[ozbob]

Twitter

Shane Doherty ‏@ShaneDoherty9

$250 cut to power bills in govt cost of living fund @TheSundayMail #9News #qldpol

[ozbob]

Sunday Mail --> Newman Government plans to cut power costs through cost of living initiative

QUEENSLANDERS will be promised a discount on their electricity if they support the Newman Government's proposed $37 billion privatisation plans at next year's state election.

The $3.4 billion sweetener promises households annual savings of up to $240, with the funds to be diverted from proceeds from privatising state-owned assets.

The Government is banking on the plan nullifying the argument by Labor and the unions that privatising electricity assets would further push up prices.

The plan would pay for the high-priced power produced by thousands of rooftop solar systems and would be a landmark cost-of-living initiative.

Power prices have been driven up by the 276,708 homes eligible for the 44 cent per kilowatt hour feed-in tariff whose excess electricity is passed on and paid for by other households.

The Government will propose a special fund from power and port privatisation proceeds be established to pay for this proportion of electricity costs until the generous feed-in tariff scheme expires in 2027 ...

================

Thought so, I felt this had something to do with the 44 cent feed in tariffs ...  politically 'too hard' to chop it so they buy it with our $$$ ...

Must be some bad news with it .... I wonder if the very generous solar feed in tariffs eg. 44c will go? #qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 11, 2014

Don't know about you but would have preferred the public transport network to be fixed up.  Sometimes governments just have to act decisively rather than use our money to buy their votes.

[ozbob]

It's your $$$ > http://t.co/qDgTcPkGuq #qldpol #auspol #springst http://t.co/vsY8zpFbz5

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 11, 2014

[ozbob]

^

Sunday Mail --> Newman Government plans to cut power costs through cost of living initiative

QUEENSLANDERS will be promised a discount on their electricity if they support the Newman Government's proposed $37 billion privatisation plans at next year's state election.

The $3.4 billion sweetener promises households annual savings of up to $240, with the funds to be diverted from proceeds from privatising state-owned assets.

The Government is banking on the plan nullifying the argument by Labor and the unions that privatising electricity assets would further push up prices.

The plan would pay for the high-priced power produced by thousands of rooftop solar systems and would be a landmark cost-of-living initiative.

Power prices have been driven up by the 276,708 homes eligible for the 44 cent per kilowatt hour feed-in tariff whose excess electricity is passed on and paid for by other households.

The Government will propose a special fund from power and port privatisation proceeds be established to pay for this proportion of electricity costs until the generous feed-in tariff scheme expires in 2027 ...

================

Thought so, I felt this had something to do with the 44 cent feed in tariffs ...  politically 'too hard' to chop it so they buy it with our $$$ ...

Must be some bad news with it .... I wonder if the very generous solar feed in tariffs eg. 44c will go? #qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) October 11, 2014

Don't know about you but would have preferred the public transport network to be fixed up.  Sometimes governments just have to act decisively rather than use our money to buy their votes.

[ozbob]

Media Release
JOINT STATEMENT
Premier
The Honourable Campbell Newman

Treasurer and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Tim Nicholls

Minister for Energy and Water Supply
The Honourable Mark McArdle

Queenslanders to get electricity price relief

The average Queensland household will save $577 on their power bills over the next five years under a Queensland Government plan to permanently remove the cost of the Solar Bonus Scheme from electricity prices.

Premier Campbell Newman said the $3.4 billion Strong Choices Cost of Living Fund would be used to ensure Queenslanders no longer had to subsidise the cost of solar usage through their power bills.

"Our Government came to office determined to ease cost of living pressures for Queenslanders," he said.

"From our family car registration freeze, to putting in place stamp duty concessions for those buying family homes, our water rebate, and cutting public transport fares, we have set about undoing Labor's years of cost of living increases.

"Now, if given a mandate to act on our Strong Choices lease plan, we will have the funds available to take six per cent off retail electricity prices in 2015/16.

"Our Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief plan will save the typical household $577 over the next five years, while households which also have tariff 33 for hot water systems or pool filters may expect to save a further $165 during that time."

Treasurer Tim Nicholls said the Solar Bonus Scheme had helped fuel Queensland's electricity price rises.

"At present, the cost of the solar bonus scheme makes up 6 per cent of a typical household electricity bill, and that's forecast to grow if nothing is done," Mr Nicholls said.

"Our Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief plan provides direct savings to Queenslanders, while also being fiscally and economically responsible.

"Importantly, under our plan there will be no change for existing solar customers. Put simply, instead of their feed-in payments coming from the price of electricity, it will come from the Strong Choices Cost of Living Fund.

"Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief represents an historic structural shift to reset the starting price of Queensland's electricity network costs.

"With network costs making up 55% of the typical household bill in 2015-16, this is the best policy solution that targets the right area instead of quick sugar hits from cash splashes or rebates."

Minister for Energy and Water Supply Mark McArdle said if implemented, the change in electricity pricing would have economic and social benefits right across Queensland, taking the pressure off businesses as well as households.

"This will further enhance our existing plans for economic growth and a diverse four pillar economy," Mr McArdle said.

"In the past we have seen Governments continually add to the price of electricity through the Somerville recommendations and its resulting capital expenditure, the mandatory renewable energy scheme, the Solar Bonus Scheme and the Carbon Tax, which was finally removed on 1 July 2014."

Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief is the final component of the Strong Choices final plan, which is expected to yield $37 billion through the lease of some government-owned assets. Those funds will be allocated as follows:

$25 billion to reduce State debt from $80 billion to a manageable $55 billion, with annual interest payments reduced from $4 billion to $2.7 billion, a saving of $1.3 billion;

$8.6 billion to establish the Strong Choices Future Investment Program, which will create 11 separate funds, each of which is dedicated to supporting infrastructure considered vital to economic growth, jobs and vibrancy of regional communities; and

$3.4 billion to create the Cost of Living Fund, now to be used to finance Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief.

However none of these proposals will be implemented until the Government has received a mandate for the plan at the next State election.

To view the plan visit www.StrongChoices.qld.gov.au

[ENDS] 12 October 2014

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow ‏@Robert_Dow

@katherinefeeney @theqldpremier @TimNichollsMP @MarkMcArdleMP Simply cut FIT. Use the money for real needs such as infrastructure. #qldpol

[ozbob]

Twitter

Robert Dow @Robert_Dow

A 5% fare cut, without fare reform IS a sugar hit. Just saying > http://railbotforum.org/mbs/index.php?topic=9539.msg147197#msg147197 ... #qldpol // @theqldpremier @scottemerson #auspol

[ozbob]

 Solar Families Used As Political Pawns by Queensland Government - Australian Solar Council
12 Oct 2014 11:41 AM

https://journalists.medianet.com.au/Release.aspx?R=812238

Solar Families Used As Political Pawns by Queensland Government

The Australian Solar Council condemns the Queensland Government's cynical move to change funding arrangements for Queenslanders holding a solar feed in tariff government contract.

"Premier Newman is vilifying solar customers, using them as pawns in a cynical move that will ultimately lead to higher power prices."

"The Queensland Government continues to attack, marginalise and vilify Queensland solar families," said John Grimes, Chief Executive of the Australian Solar Council.

"First Treasurer Tim Nicholls denigrated all solar households when he described solar customers as 'champagne sippers and the latte set'."

"Next the Newman Government introduced higher fixed daily charges squarely designed to push solar off the grid by making the technology uneconomic."

"Now the Newman Government wants to turn public sentiment against people who entered into a government contracted scheme in good faith."

"This is a new low in wedge politics and the vilification of solar customers," said Grimes.

"The Newman Government has written the playbook when it comes to attacking solar, with its lead being quickly adopted by the Abbott Government."

"The Newman Government is completely out of touch on solar.  Queenslanders want more solar not less. They see the solar potential of their great state. Queenslanders know solar saves money, and installing solar will slash an average electricity bill by more than 65%."

"Everybody knows with power company privatisation comes higher power bills".

Federal Government modelling shows the more solar you have on the network the cheaper electricity prices become for everybody, not just those who have invested their own money in solar.

12 October 2014

[ozbob]

Lock the Gate Alliance --> Queenslanders will not be duped by LNP duplicity on power prices

The LNP's claim that Queenslanders will save on power bills if the solar bonus scheme is removed is just an excuse to continue subsidising the fossil fuel industries.

Lock the Gate Alliance's spokesman, Drew Hutton said the State Government's "plan" was yet another thinly-veiled attempt to hood-wink Queenslanders.

"Queenslanders, like most Australians, love solar power and other renewable industries but the LNP is under the thumb of the mining industry here and is doing whatever it takes to placate its masters," Mr Hutton said.

A research paper by The Australia Institute this year showed that, over a six-year period, the Queensland State Government spent $9.5 billion supporting the mineral and fossil fuel industries.

"The report shows Queensland's level of subsidy to dirty industries is by far the largest of all Australian states," he said. "Queensland's expenditure on these industries in 2013-14 is similar to the amount to be spent on disability services and capital expenditure on hospitals.

"It's just outrageous that this government will spend as much on supporting the mining industry as it does on supporting some of our most vulnerable citizens."

In 2013-14 Queensland is planning on spending $1.5 billion on industry assistance, almost 60 per cent of what it will receive in royalties, the report showed.

"This government should represent the people and support their wish to promote renewables and stop looking for excuses to prop up dying and dirty industries," he said.

Link to report: http://tai.org.au/content/mining-age-entitlement

[#Metro]

"Next the Newman Government introduced higher fixed daily charges squarely designed to push solar off the grid by making the technology uneconomic."

My understanding is that connecting solar to the grid isn't free. The electricity network is a shared good and everyone dumping load into the system can affect supply for everyone connected unless transformer equipment and other devices on the network are upgraded. Who should pay? The people installing these devices should bear some of the cost.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-08/qld-providers-trying-to-block-solar-from-grid-groups-says/5579874

Ergon and Energex said the changes, which included new rules about installing systems that feed in power, would help them manage the detrimental impact of solar on their power networks.

"These new rules will help avoid many of the costs associated with upgrading Ergon's network to cope with increasing numbers of these systems - costs that are ultimately borne by all electricity customers," Ergon chief executive Ian McLeod said.

https://www.ergon.com.au/network/contractors-and-industry/solar-pv-installers/connection-essentials

Approve, downsize or decline applications
Applications may be downsized or declined if:

The transformer serving the premises is too small to support the volume of electricity that could be generated by the system
The connection is a relatively long distance away from the transformer, which may cause significant voltage fluctuations
There are already a number of solar PV or other IES connections that share the same transformer. This may even be the case if there is only one other IES connection.
If the application is downsized or declined, customers can re-apply for an inverter up to a maximum size we advise, withdraw their application or explore alternative options to:

Install a small-scale system with an inverter of a lower capacity
Upgrade the number of electrical phases of the premises to accommodate the desired inverter size
Pay for an upgrade to the network to accommodate the inverter originally requested.