Long term leases [was Asset sales?]

[ozbob]

The money that may be obtained from leasing or sale is over estimated IMO.

Leasing 50 years with a 49 year option is nonsensical, change is too rapid.

There is rapid development in battery storage.  This means that off grid set ups will be easily achievable, particularly with our climate. This is going to lead to much tension and will probably mean maintenance and improvement of the distribution system will fall away.

There are already some pioneers that have done off grid, cost effectively even with the battery systems of today.

I have 3kW system, which works very well.  We use washing machines, stoves etc. during the day when generating power.  The small amount left over goes into the grid, get 6c / kW hour.  Last bill got $33.  But that is not really the point, it is the ability to run this computer, appliances during the day for little cost, other than the base daily charge for connections.  Bills have been going down, where as others without the solar have been going up.  People do not have to feed in to the network, they can run it as an isolated system.  The FIT is very small for the majority as it was only the early adopters that get the high FIT.

There was something I heard recently on the radio. A guy who early put in a big system, think it was 15kW or so, and he claims he used to make around $500 a quarter profit.  He said now, even with his high FIT his bills are about even.  This shows how much power bills have risen hey?

Forgot, there are  connection costs when you set up the system, apart from the system itself. Electricity companies do quite nicely actually.  Why do the big companies flog the systems?  LOL

[#Metro]

There is rapid development in battery storage.  This means that off grid set ups will be easily achievable, particularly with our climate. This is going to lead to much tension and will probably mean maintenance and improvement of the distribution system will fall away.

There are already some pioneers that have done off grid, cost effectively even with the battery systems of today.

I have 3kW system, which works very well.  We use washing machines, stoves etc. during the day when generating power.  The small amount left over goes into the grid, get 6c / kW hour.  Last bill got $33.  But that is not really the point, it is the ability to run this computer, appliances during the day for little cost, other than the base daily charge for connections.  Bills have been going down, where as others without the solar have been going up.  People do not have to feed in to the network, they can run it as an isolated system.  The FIT is very small for the majority as it was only the early adopters that get the high FIT.

There was something I heard recently on the radio. A guy who early put in a big system, think it was 15kW or so, and he claims he used to make around $500 a quarter profit.  He said now, even with his high FIT his bills are about even.  This shows how much power bills have risen hey?

I think if people are connecting to the grid and imposing costs, it is not unreasonable to charge a contribution to pay for the upgrades to the shared network to pay for that. The presence of a charge also signals and encourages people to consider isolating their systems from the grid.

There is a death spiral in there as well: the cost of having the shared network exists and is large and more or less fixed. If more users leave the network that cost is divided over a smaller and smaller pool of connected users. Hence connection fees should be expected to rise, fuelling the next cycle of cost increase--->people leave system--->connection fee increase to fill the gap--->cost increase.

Actually, given this and the uncertainty related to this death spiral function, it might make total sense for the government to bail out and sell to privates while there is still value within the network. I think the price for power will increase, almost no doubt about that, but not because it was placed in private hands, but because the gov't knows what's coming and wants to be well of the scene with the cash before D-day comes around.

[ozbob]

The horse has bolted ...

The optimistic $$$ projections for the leasing will not be realised. 

They have said it is all dependent on getting the money and no real guaranteed timelines ..  so what projects will get the chop?

My guess is the BaT is getting a virus ...

[ozbob]

... I think if people are connecting to the grid and imposing costs, it is not unreasonable to charge a contribution to pay for the upgrades to the shared network to pay for that. The presence of a charge also signals and encourages people to consider isolating their systems from the grid ...

There are connection costs but since the FIT was floated, the power companies love it, because ..

the consumer with a PV system gets the market rate for FIT presently around 6c / kW hour.  The power companies sell that for around 20 to 30c / kW hour,  300 - 500% mark up ..   there is a lot of spin and bull around this from the industry,  they are in reality making money, lots of money. Money for the system upgrades etc.

That is why they flog the solar systems.

[#Metro]

The removal of assets from the public sector is a joint project between red team and blue team in Queensland and all over Australia. NSW is set to sell of the power networks last time I heard as well. There really isn't much difference between either party.

Beattie said that power would not be sold off (and neither QR). Of course, he sold off the retail sections of electricity (leaving the job of selling the power distribution to blue team, makes sense as unions in red team makes red team implementation of network sell off near impossible). While denying the sale of QR freight, QR was restructured and reformulated a number of times (lost count of the number of logos) in preparation for exactly that.

Anna Bligh then finished the job by selling off Queensland Rail Freight by float. I think she really needed the money, just in time for the 2011 floods. Blue team is just picking up where red team left off. If we look over the border at NSW, we can confirm that this is not unique to Queensland, as Kenneally started the process by selling the power retailers in NSW, and she's from red team.

It is possible to show that the value of the power assets from the government perspective appears to be in decline, and leaving any sale until later risks the state holding assets that have only residual value. The networks are profitable now but who knows what it will be like in the future with solar etc, and the legislative risk of future carbon pricing/taxes etc. Government owned businesses can and do go bankrupt - State Bank of SA and Victoria for example - , so I suspect it is a strategy to get out now and leave the problems with the private sector to wear (which you can then heap blame on at a later date).

Background Briefing
http://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insights/legal-briefings/privatisation-prospects-for-the-queensland-electricity-sector

This recommendation is not new. In 1996 another Queensland Commission of Audit made the same recommendation for privatisation of energy sector GOCs. The Commission has estimated that the loss of value to the Government for not taking up the initial recommendation is in the order of $7.2 billion (in 2011-12).

Check out SA, 200 year lease... ha!!

In SA, the lessee (SA Power Networks) of the 200 year lease was responsible for all costs, expenses and liabilities associated with the leased network assets and was responsible for all maintenance, upgrading and replacement of those assets. Again, capital expenditure by the lessee therefore resulted in the creation of assets that were owned by the lessor (SA Government) and leased back to the lessee.

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/au/knowledge/publications/118094/privatisation-of-electricity-networks-new-south-wales-australia

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Privatisation deal would zap power costs, Premier Newman claims – but Labor says it will drive prices up

Brisbanetimes --> Solar tariff scheme bigger bungle than health payroll: Newman

Ladies and Gentlemen!  You are all fu'ked!  You're welcome!   

ABC Background Briefing --> The price of power


Now lets step back a minute.  Is it the politicians to really blame for all the fiasco's or the bumbling bureaucracy that offers ' impartial ' advice on all matters.  We know what a mess transport is as well, other domains are equally flawed I would suggest. 

What happens is political compromise ends up stuffing up everything.

[#Metro]

Politicians need to be elected, what's new? This is like 9-then free all over again.

I feel sorry for the public servants, I actually think they do a decent job in what is increasingly politicised and populist environment.

Red team is correct when they say power prices will go up. They have been going up in every capital city since at least 2000, regardless of ownership considerations. NSW, QLD and Tasmanian systems are public, Victoria's private but if you look at the graph in page 1, all capital cities power prices have gone up regardless of whether the owner is public or private (http://www.esaa.com.au/Library/PageContentFiles/64b28ac8-0cad-4f90-85fd-cc493840aa1f/121017_Electricity_Price_Growth.pdf)

I am almost certain that power prices will go up, but not because of ownership. If they were still in public hands, the price would still go up anyway. This is because prices are set within the National Electricity Market and the National Electricity Regulator through engaging the cheapest producers at the time of demand. See ---> http://www.rba.gov.au/foi/disclosure-log/pdf/101115.pdf

HOW ARE ELECTRICITY PRICES SET IN AUSTRALIA?
Reserve Bank of Austalia, FOI release.

[#Metro]

Power prices increase, regardless of public/private ownership. Compare QLD (public) vs Victoria (private). No real difference - all prices rise. Prices set by NEM choosing the lowest cost generator at the time of demand. Poles and wire costs capped by regulation. Canberra - worst prices out of all, network is a joint venture between ACTs public utility and a private company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTEW_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActewAGL


http://www.esaa.com.au/Library/PageContentFiles/64b28ac8-0cad-4f90-85fd-cc493840aa1f/121017_Electricity_Price_Growth.pdf

ESAA Fact Sheet

Background to Energy Market http://www.aer.gov.au/sites/default/files/State%20of%20the%20Energy%20market%202012%20-%20Complete%20report%20%28A4%29.pdf

[ozbob]

ABC News --> Survey finds 1 in 8 Australians cannot afford to pay electricity bill

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Rorting in the power industry about to be laid bare

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Scrapping solar scheme helps sell-off: McArdle

[ozbob]

ABC News --> Premier Campbell Newman accused of 'demonising' solar industry to boost asset privatisation agenda

[ozbob]

JOINT STATEMENT

Treasurer and Minister for Trade
The Honourable Tim Nicholls

Minister for Energy and Water Supply
The Honourable Mark McArdle

Monday, October 13, 2014

Queenslanders can calculate their electricity savings

Every Queensland household can now calculate how much they would save on their electricity bills under the Queensland Government's $3.4 billion Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief plan.

Treasurer Tim Nicholls said a simple online calculating tool was now available for Queenslanders to fill in electricity bill information and determine their savings.

"The LNP came to office determined to ease cost of living pressures for Queenslanders and yesterday we announced our Strong Choices Electricity Price Relief plan, which would see the Government permanently remove the cost of the Solar Bonus Scheme from electricity prices," Mr Nicholls said.

"While we know the typical Queensland household will save $577 on their power bills over the next five years, this online calculator will give a much more individualised determination for families, based either on their latest bill, or an estimation of how much electricity their household uses.

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

"And 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 $3.4 billion Strong Choices Cost of Living Fund."

Energy Minister Mark McArdle said the online savings calculator was an easy way for Queensland families to factor in their future savings should the government be given a mandate for the Strong Choices lease plan.

"This tool gives Queenslanders the opportunity to use their own bills to see what the real savings will be for their family, right there on the screen," Mr McArdle said.

"From our family car registration freeze, to stamp duty concessions for those buying family homes, our water rebate, and cutting public transport fares, the LNP has set about has set about providing some relief from 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."

Mr Nicholls said the data and valuations used to create the online electricity savings calculator were reviewed and verified by former Auditor-General Len Scanlan.

To check your own electricity bill and work out what your own future savings could be, go to www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au

[ENDS] 13 October 2014

>> http://www.strongchoices.qld.gov.au/tariff/intro

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Electricity distributers' return on new infrastructure up to 9.7 per cent compared to 6.5 per cent for water companies


Edit:  My home solar system is 3.5kW not 3.   It is a very sensible move to get one, even though the FIT are only around 6c.  But as explained above you can make big savings by optimising use during the day etc.

Once the assets flogged/leased, I have no doubt power costs will continue to increase in price.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Tim Nicholls looks for silver lining in ACCC comments on electricity privatisation

[ozbob]

Letter to the editor Queensland Times published 14th October 2014

A simple fare cut is nothing but a 'sugar fix'

[ozbob]

Brisbantimes --> Network asset value should be slashed by $9 billion

Uh oh ....

I have little doubt that the Government is over-valuing the electricity asset flog off in Queensland as well ...

[#Metro]

Brisbantimes --> Network asset value should be slashed by $9 billion

The longer the gov't holds on to these assets, the more value is lost. Bailing out sooner rather than later might not be so bad an idea.

[ozbob]

Independent Australia --> Here we Joh again! Power asset fire-sale to slam Queenslanders

Massive rises in transport fares forecast by Energy Minister Mark McArdle are set to dwarf the electricity bill subsidies being offered to householders by the Newman Government.

Commuters from the outer Brisbane suburbs could be faced with extra fares of up to $850 a year as a result of the Queensland Government losing its income stream from power companies.

That was the warning issued by Mr McArdle earlier this year when talking about the loss of dividends from the power industry ...

[#Metro]

There is no evidence to indicate or suggestion thst the sale or lease of the various power assets will lead to power price inceases more or less than the currrent strategy.

I don't think an argument can be made on revenue streams alone. See, if something is not profitable people will say 'the government must own it, it won't make money', if it is profitable people will say 'the government must own it, it is making money.' These are mutually contradictory statements justifying the same end.

Power prices will rise and are likely to keep doing so, independent of ownership. There is 10-20 years worth of data that shows this, much of the rise since 2000 and no data that I could find where the prices went down - no matter who was owning what. The current state owned generators all operate on a commercial basis and are required to make a profit already. So the objection 'profits will increase the costs' doesn't make sense, AIUI the current state owned lot have to do this already. This is why dividends are paid in the first place.

The cost explosion within PT in QLD has been driven by BCC (through bus network routing inefficiency) and QR (having to upgrade things to DDA and use of 2x as much labor inputs as other places due to lack of DOO, ATP, legacy issues). Victoria has private electrical everything, some of the cheapest PT in the country, we're the ones with the high fares etc.

The prices for electricity are set by the National Electricity Market operator AEMO and their computer system which calls up all the power stations in Australia (bar WA, NT) every 5 minutes to turn generation on or off at various power facilities across the country.

I'm happy to be wrong and be corrected etc, please do, but a quick rough calculation on the claims made by IA Website:

($22 billion of assets at say $1BN return each year ) x 100 = 4.5% return on assets. This is barely better than interest on government debt or an internet savings bank account. Some of that will devalue because of people leaving the grid due to solar etc.

I haven't made adjustments for the fact that $100 today is worth more than $100 in 20 years, but doing so would probably make the outlook even worse.

If we look at the Australian Share Market, for example, average return over 100+ years is about 13% http://www.crcfs.com.au/uploads/file/109%20years%20of%20All%20Ords%20returns.pdf

So even if the concern was about maximising income, you would still sell and put the money in a managed fund investing in Australian equities IMHO, just like the Australian Future Fund does.

[#Metro]

The generation (power plants) are not natural monopolies, indeed they are in direct competition with solar panels etc and other generators. Solar panels are also privatisation in the sense that the asset (solar panel) is not owned by the government and the energy going into the network is competing with those generated at state plants.

I wonder how NEM handles the load from solar panels on the grid. A computer at AEMO calls up the power plants and turns generation on and off -- but it cannot do this with solar panels ---.

Power cannot be stored in the grid (no battery big enough to power entire cities), so it must be generated as it is required.

[ozbob]

Uh oh ..

Newman fails to lower power bills & asset leasing may not meet estimated value

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Powerlink is Queensland government's golden goose

[#Metro]

$33 billion would pay for CRR three times over.

(Yes, You would even have enough to throw in a controversial combined metro with that money too.)

100% self-fund. No Fed or council funding required. It just shows that this 'lack of funds' is purely self-inflicted.

The value of an asset is simply its expected future income stream (adjusted for time). So there is no 'loss of future profits'.

If structured as a lease, the asset is also not "lost" but returns to the state after the lease period as well.

There is a lot of money locked up in these assets. That can be borrowed against (lowest interest rates historically) and the future profit

stream used to pay off the interest, or leased or sold.

[Gazza]

In terms of storing power generated on a large scale, there is pumped storage...

[#Metro]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/it-pro/government-it/queensland-health-payroll-fail-government-ordered-to-pay-ibm-costs-20160404-gnxpqj.html

IBM won the contract to design and deliver a whole-of-government payroll system in 2007 but its rollout was plagued by delays and budget blowouts.

When it did go live, the system failed spectacularly, resulting in thousands of health workers being underpaid, overpaid, or not paid at all.

The cost to taxpayers has been estimated at $1.2 billion and the debacle has been described as possibly the worst public administration failure in Australia.

I think these guys approached Mater Hospital and wanted to flog their system. Mater refused apparently...

[nathandavid88]

^^ Smart move by Mater, if this was the case.

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> State Government won't budge over asset sales

[#Metro]

She said the Government was instead looking to other means to fund services and infrastructure into the future.

"other means" hey? Is that code for Make Malcolm Pay?

LOL.

More than enough for CRR 'SuperDeluxe' 

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Pallas warns more asset sales 'on the horizon' to pay for major projects

The Andrews government is planning to privatise more state-owned assets to help pay for billions of dollars' worth of road and rail projects over the next decade – but won't say which ones could be sold off.

Weeks after legislation to sell the Port of Melbourne finally passed the Victorian Parliament, Treasurer Tim Pallas has confirmed the government is already eyeing off a number of other assets that could be "recycled" in order to help fund Labor's $46 billion infrastructure agenda.

"There will be more, let me be very clear about that," Mr Pallas declared at a post-budget lunch hosted by the Melbourne Press Club and the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

"We intend over the course of this year and next year of proving up the viability of certain assets. There are some that are on our horizon that we're looking at, but I don't want to put that in to the public domain at the moment – the reason being there are people who work there and whose livelihoods are affected, and I think I at least owe them the courtesy of speaking to them directly before I start telling the world at large that their particular undertakings will be affected."

The push to further relinquish state-owned assets was outlined in the Victorian budget papers released on Wednesday, which warned that the state would need new strategies to fund its major projects over the next 10 years ...

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pallas-warns-more-asset-sales-on-the-horizon-to-pay-for-major-projects-20160430-goiurb.html

[#Metro]

What are the Victorians going to sell?  :conf

Most assets already off the shelf.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Labor urged to reconsider asset sales

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Doug McTaggart, former audit commission, says 'other issues' at work beside asset sales when Newman Govt dumped

[ozbob]

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/7/27/tim-nicholls-should-break-vow-of-silence-on-asset-sales

Media Statements
Treasurer, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships and Minister for Sport
The Honourable Curtis Pitt
Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Tim Nicholls should break vow of silence on asset sales

Treasurer Curtis Pitt says now is a good time for Tim Nicholls to break his two-month vow of silence and reveal his secret policy for asset sales.

"The reported comments (external site) by the ACCC chair Rod Sims questioning the benefits of privatisating public assets makes it imperative Queenslanders know now where Tim Nicholls stands," Mr Pitt said.

"Mr Sims has said that selling off assets such as ports and electricity infrastructure can create unregulated monopolies that damage productivity and the wider economy.

"Surely Queenslanders deserve to know the position on this issue of the person who wants to be premier of the state?

"It is very simple — either the LNP under Tim Nicholls backs asset sales or it doesn't.

"We should have heard the answer from Mr Nicholls as soon as he became LNP leader on 6 May but he has kept his policy secret.

"He knows the ins and outs of asset sales and all the arguments for and against, yet he keeps silent instead of being honest with Queensland voters."

Mr Pitt said Queenslanders could only assume Mr Nicholls's silence meant asset sales were the LNP's one-point economic plan.

"In the past Mr Nicholls has had no problem letting everyone know his position — before the 2012 state election he was against asset sales, yet spent all his time as Treasurer relentlessly pushing asset sales.

"Mr Nicholls vowed asset sales were off the agenda after the 2015 state election.

"He became LNP leader on 6 May, but less than two weeks later on 24 May he said his position on asset sales would be known 'in due course'.

"It is now more than two months since he made that commitment and he's even delivered his Budget Reply speech but stayed silent on asset sales which appear to be the LNP's secret and only economic policy."

Mr Nicholls could consult with Mr Sims who apparently told the Melbourne Economic Forum on Tuesday: 'I'm now almost at the point of opposing privatisation because it's been done to boost proceeds, it's been done to boost asset sales and I think it's severely damaging our economy.'

"Perhaps he should ask Mike Baird for advice given the Liberal NSW government has reportedly moved to delay a potentially embarrassing $520-per-household annual power price hike next year." 

Mr Pitt said by attacking a number of government revenue measures Mr Nicholls had already dug an $8 billion budget 'black hole' for any LNP government.

"Mr Nicholls needs to explain how he plans to fill that black hole before he starts making any promises to Queensland voters," he said.

"In the vacuum he has created we can only assume asset sales are his answer."

Mr Pitt said other evidence suggested Mr Nicholls was secretly backing asset sales.

"We regularly read stories about LNP MPs pushing for asset sales without admitting to it publicly," he said.

"There have been reports of LNP MPs suggesting their party needs to mount a 'succinct and clearer campaign' to persuade voters to accept asset sales.

"Their secret policy is why Tim Nicholls and other LNP MPs are always talking down Queensland — to once again try to scare voters into accepting asset sales."

[#Metro]

"Mr Sims has said that selling off assets such as ports and electricity infrastructure can create unregulated monopolies that damage productivity and the wider economy.

Privatisation is like baking a cake - you can do a good job of it, or you can do a bad job of it. Details matter, so the only valid generalisation one can make is "it depends".

How it tastes, in the end, depends on what it is and how you made it. Govt's are probably creating anti-competitive privileges because it inflates the final sale price. There is nothing inherent in an asset sale that makes that a necessity. Indeed, power generation is a competitive process that isn't inherently monopolistic, especially when people can voluntarily choose to quit the grid and go solar.

The article also cites Queensland's electricity network as being private and then tries to link this with the wider (higher) price level - which is not valid. It's all public in QLD (except the marketing) and we've seen some of the highest prices of all. If you look at various price levels and who owns what, there is no correlation - all prices rise, regardless and independent of ownership.

The problem with Blue Team is that they are way too complicated with the approach. Simplest approach to is to let Queenslanders and workers own it and have first offer rather than sell it to investment banks.

[ozbob]

QLD Deputy Premier faces roadblock in infrastructure plan #TenNews https://t.co/KW9Knw9pBg pic.twitter.com/lgqYlCQVcX

— TEN News Queensland (@tennewsqld) August 4, 2016

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Queensland Government land sell-off to fund urban renewal

STATE-OWNED land in Queensland cities will be sold by the Palaszczuk Government to kickstart urban ­renewal precincts and bankroll new infrastructure.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk will outline the new strategy in a speech today in Townsville, where she is governing for the week, in the hope of reviving Labor's flagging electoral fortunes.

A leaked copy of the strategy reveals developers will have to tailor their proposals to meet Government priorities to snare prime sites.

Southeast Queensland sites identified in the strategy include Mayne Rail Yards at Bowen Hills, properties at Boggo Rd, Roma St and Woolloongabba, a former university campus in Carseldine and a vacant college at Oxley.

Regional renewal precincts include the Townsville waterfront, Toowoomba railway parkland and city centre sites in Mackay, Hervey Bay and Rockhampton.

In the strategy foreword, Ms Palaszczuk and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad state the Government would create jobs, drive growth and build better-connected communities "through the strategic reuse and renewal of under-utilised and surplus government properties".

"This initiative will enable suitable properties to be reviewed, renewed and repurposed in ways which will deliver a range of economic, community and financial outcomes," the leaders claim.

The development industry is expected to support the strategy as significant tracts of state land are in unrivalled ­locations and have been locked up for generations.

Eight economic and community zone types have been identified, including southeast Queensland and regional city urban renewal projects and health and housing precincts.

Government departments will be tasked with identifying surplus sites that may present development opportunities.

"Developments will need to deliver strong community benefits, meet broader government priorities such as ­innovation, affordable housing and expanded tourism and will involve engagement with local governments, the community, stakeholders and industry," the strategy states.

One of the zones is a corridor along the route of the $5.4 billion Cross River Rail project from Bowen Hills to Boggo Rd where there is vacant land.

The strategy states prominent land parcels along the CRR route, such as Mayne Rail Yards, would offer multi-billion-dollar transit-orientated development opportunities.

"Income generated from developing sites within the corridor will be used to contribute funding towards CRR and to create exemplary ­public spaces and other ­infrastructure for the community," it states.

THE new "Advancing our cities and regions" strategy is smart, pragmatic politics by the Palaszczuk Government.

It seeks to use surplus land to build better communities and fund much-needed infrastructure. Currently, the State Government is sitting on some $300 billion worth of ­assets while its ability to buy new infrastructure is dwarfed by a mountain of debt.

While the wisdom of keeping income-earning assets in such an environment can be questioned, this strategy doesn't contravene that commitment. Instead, it seeks to exploit another area of assets; the state's property portfolio.

It aims to better integrate services and improve the livability of our cities while freeing up infrastructure funds.

Selling and leasing land won't fund the entire backlog of infrastructure, but Jackie Trad's willingness to innovate around roadblocks Labor has created should be welcomed.

[ozbob]

.@AnnastaciaMP gov reneges on election promise not to sell publicly owned assets. pic.twitter.com/LraDTGdrkY

— Patrick Condren (@PatrickCondren) October 5, 2016

[ozbob]

Queensland government to sell off state government land to developers to help fund new infrastructure. https://t.co/AqkikIEIuF #9News

— Nine News Brisbane (@9NewsBrisbane) October 5, 2016

[#Metro]

Land is an asset. End of story. This is an asset sale.

There is no getting around this - for a government that considers a lease equal to a sale (ridiculous), this is a sale, hands down...