EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT TO THE NATIONAL COMPETITION COUNCIL March 2004 (Final) Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council BLANK PAGE Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Contents PART 1 – COMPETITION PRINCIPLES AGREEMENT........................................ 5 1. LEGISLATION REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 5 1.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 SCHEDULED REVIEWS ............................................................................................................. 6 1.3 PRIORITY REVIEW LEGISLATION ............................................................................................. 6 1.3.1 Liquor Act 1992 ..................................................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Queensland) Act 1994 ............................ 6 1.3.3 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 ......................................... 6 1.3.4 Fisheries Act 1994 ................................................................................................. 7 1.3.5 Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 ................................................................................ 9 1.3.6 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (taxis) ............................... 9 1.3.7 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Rail Safety) .................................................. 10 1.3.8 Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 1994 — Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (activities outside ports)............................................................................. 10 1.3.9 Health practitioner legislation (practice restrictions): ...........................................11 1.3.10 Nursing Act 1992 ..................................................................................................11 1.3.11 Occupational Therapists Act 1979 ........................................................................11 1.3.12 Speech Pathologists Act 1979 .............................................................................. 12 1.3.13 Pharmacy Act 1976 .............................................................................................. 12 1.3.14 Health Act 1937 (drugs and poisons) ................................................................... 13 1.3.15 Legal Practitioners Act 1995 ............................................................................... 13 1.3.16 Health Act 1937 (hairdressing) ............................................................................ 14 1.3.17 Pawnbrokers Act 1984; Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 ............. 14 1.3.18 Travel Agents Act 1988 ....................................................................................... 14 1.3.19 Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 (maximum commissions for auctioneers and real estate agents); Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 ..................... 14 1.3.20 Workcover Queensland Act 1996 (monopoly insurance provision) .................... 15 1.3.21 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 ................................................... 18 1.3.22 Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 ...................................................................... 24 1.3.23 Credit Act 1987.................................................................................................... 24 1.3.24 Gambling Legislation .......................................................................................... 24 1.3.25 Interactive Gambling (Player Protection) Act 1998 ............................................. 25 1.3.26 Grammar Schools Act 1975 ................................................................................. 25 1.3.27 Child Care Act 1991; Child Care (Child Care Centres) Regulation 1991 and Child Care (Family Day Care) Regulation 1991 .......................................................... 25 1.3.28 Surveyors Act 1977 ............................................................................................. 25 1.4 NON-PRIORITY REVIEW LEGISLATION ................................................................................... 26 1.4.1 Consumer Credit Legislation ............................................................................... 26 1.4.2 Financial Intermediaries Act 1996 ....................................................................... 26 1.4.3 Land Act 1994 ..................................................................................................... 27 1.4.4 Trade Measurement Act 1990 .............................................................................. 27 1.4.5 Trustee Companies Act 1968 ............................................................................... 28 1.5 NEW LEGISLATION ................................................................................................................ 28 Page i Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 2. COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY .............................................................................................. 30 2.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 30 2.2 COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS ..................................................... 30 2.2.1 TAFE.................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.2 Forestry ................................................................................................................ 30 2.2.3 Public Trust Office ............................................................................................... 32 2.3 COMPLAINTS ......................................................................................................................... 33 2.3.1 Complaints to the Queensland Competition Authority ........................................ 33 2.3.2 Complaints to Queensland Treasury .................................................................... 33 2.3.3 Other Complaints ................................................................................................. 34 3. STRUCTURAL REFORM ..................................................................................................... 35 3.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 STRUCTURAL REFORM PROGRESS ......................................................................................... 35 4. PRICES OVERSIGHT........................................................................................................... 36 4.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ................................................................. 36 4.3 PRICING INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................................................... 37 5. THIRD PARTY ACCESS ...................................................................................................... 38 5.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 38 5.2 SERVICES COVERED BY THE QUEENSLAND COMPETITION AUTHORITY ACT 1997 .................. 38 5.3 RECENT ACTIVITIES .............................................................................................................. 38 6. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ....................................................................................................... 39 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 39 6.2 COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY ................................................................................................... 40 6.2.1 Reform Progress .................................................................................................. 40 6.3 COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY COMPLAINT PROCESS ................................................................ 42 6.4 COMMUNITY SERVICE OBLIGATIONS ..................................................................................... 42 PART 2 – CONDUCT CODE AGREEMENT ............................................ 44 7. TRADE PRACTICES ............................................................................................................ 44 7.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 44 7.2 TRADE PRACTICES EXEMPTIONS ........................................................................................... 44 PART 3 – AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE NATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY AND RELATED REFORMS ......................................... 45 8. ELECTRICITY REFORMS.................................................................................................... 45 8.1 CODE DEROGATIONS .............................................................................................................. 45 8.1.1 Forward Looking Loss Factors ............................................................................ 45 8.1.2 Technical Derogations ......................................................................................... 45 8.2 RETAIL MARKET COMPETITION .............................................................................................. 46 8.2.1 Full Retail Contestability ..................................................................................... 46 8.2.2 Tranche 4A .......................................................................................................... 48 8.2.3 Community Service Obligations .......................................................................... 49 8.2.4 Energy Procurement............................................................................................. 50 9. GAS REFORMS ................................................................................................................... 52 9.1 LEGISLATION REVIEW AND REFORM....................................................................................... 52 Page ii Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 9.2 9.3 9.1.1 Submerged lands legislation ................................................................................ 52 9.1.2 On-shore acreage management legislation .......................................................... 52 FULL RETAIL CONTESTABILITY .............................................................................................. 53 GAS QUALITY STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 54 10. WATER REFORMS .............................................................................................................. 55 10.1 RURAL WATER PRICING......................................................................................................... 55 10.1.1 Cost Recovery ..................................................................................................... 55 10.1.2 Asset Valuation .................................................................................................... 57 10.1.3 Dividends ............................................................................................................. 57 10.1.4 Natural Resource Management Costs .................................................................. 58 10.1.5 Cross Subsidies .................................................................................................... 58 10.1.6 CSO payments ..................................................................................................... 59 10.1.7 Licence Enforcement and Cost Recovery ............................................................ 59 10.1.8 Consumption-based Pricing ................................................................................. 60 10.2 URBAN WATER AND WASTEWATER ........................................................................................ 60 10.2.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 60 10.2.2 Councils Operating Significant Business Activities. ........................................... 62 10.2.3 Greater than 5000 Water Connections (outside largest 18 Councils)................... 63 10.2.4 Councils with between 1000 – 5000 water connections. ..................................... 64 10.2.4 NQ Water ............................................................................................................. 65 10.2.5 Trade Waste Charging .......................................................................................... 65 10.2.6 Community Service Obligations and Cross Subsidies ......................................... 66 10.2.7 Summary.............................................................................................................. 67 10.3 WATER MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 67 10.3.1 Water Entitlement Systems .................................................................................. 67 10.3.2 Water for the Environment .................................................................................. 71 10.4 WATER TRADING ................................................................................................................... 79 10.4.1 Current trading rules and zones ........................................................................... 79 10.4.2 Legislative and institutional arrangements .......................................................... 80 10.4.3 Mechanisms to Avoid Adverse Environmental Impacts ...................................... 80 10.4.4 Restrictions on Trade ........................................................................................... 81 10.4.5 Recent Trade Information .................................................................................... 81 10.4.6 Permanent Transfer Trials: Interim Water Allocations ......................................... 82 10.4.7 Trading Rules: Subsequently Completed ROPs .................................................. 83 10.4.7 Expected Trade Demand: ROPs Completed Post-2005 ....................................... 83 10.4.7 Expected Trade Demand: Areas not Covered by WRPs and ROPs ..................... 85 10.4.8 Timeliness of Approval Processes ....................................................................... 85 10.4.9 Water Trading Mechanisms ................................................................................. 85 10.4.10 Market information .............................................................................................. 86 10.5 NEW RURAL WATER INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 86 10.6 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND CONSULTATION .............................................................................. 87 10.6.1 Rural Cost Recovery and Pricing......................................................................... 87 10.6.2 Water Management Arrangements ....................................................................... 87 10.6.3 Water Trading Arrangements ............................................................................... 89 10.6.4 New rural water infrastructure ............................................................................. 89 10.6.5 General ................................................................................................................ 89 Page iii Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 1: ...... NEW LEGISLATION ATTACHMENT 2: ...... LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY REFORMS ATTACHMENT 3: ...... LOCAL GOVERNMENT WATER TARIFFS ATTACHMENT 4: ...... LOCAL GOVERNMENT COAG WATER REFORM ATTACHMENT 5: ...... LOCAL GOVERNMENT CSOs AND CROSS-SUBSIDIES ATTACHMENT 6: ...... LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRADE WASTE CHARGES Page iv Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Part 1 – Competition Principles Agreement 1. 1.1 LEGISLATION REVIEW Background Under Clause 5 of the Competition Principles Agreement (CPA), the Queensland Government, along with all other jurisdictions, is required to review, and where appropriate reform, all existing legislation (as at June 1996) that included restrictions on competition. The guiding principle is that legislation should not restrict competition unless it can be demonstrated that: the benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition. The CPA also requires jurisdictions to: examine all new legislation that restricts competition and provide evidence that the proposed new legislation is consistent with the guiding principle as outlined above; and systematically review all legislation that restricts competition at least once every 10 years to ensure the legislation remains consistent with the guiding principle. The deadline for completing the review and reform of existing legislation was 31 December 2000. In November 2000, the Council of Australian Government (CoAG) agreed to extend the deadline for the completion of the legislation review and reform program to 30 June 2002. Satisfactory implementation of reforms by the due date may include, where justified by a public interest assessment, having in place a firm transitional arrangement that may extend beyond the revised deadline. In November 2000, CoAG also agreed that, in assessing whether the threshold requirement of Clause 5 has been achieved, the NCC should consider whether the conclusion reached in a review report is within a range of outcomes that could reasonably be reached based on the information available to a properly constituted review process. Within the range of outcomes that could reasonably be reached, it is a matter for the responsible government to determine what policy is in the public interest. The Agreement to Implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms requires jurisdictions, when proposing new national regulatory standards through Ministerial Councils and other national standards-setting bodies, to set such standards in accordance with the CoAG Principles and Guidelines for National Standard Setting and Regulatory Action. The Commonwealth Office of Regulation Review (ORR) provides advice to the NCC on jurisdictions‘ compliance with the principles and guidelines. Page 5 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.2 Scheduled Reviews All jurisdictions were required to develop a timetable for reviewing all existing legislation (as at June 1996) that included restrictions on competition. All jurisdictions are also required to report annually on progress in relation to that timetable. Queensland has essentially completed its review and reform of legislation on the timetable. Details in relation to progress on the outstanding legislation as identified in the NCC‘s 2003 assessment and 2004 assessment framework is included below. 1.3 1.3.1 Priority Review Legislation Liquor Act 1992 In 2003, the NCC assessed Queensland as not meeting its CPA obligations with respect to the review and reform of the Liquor Act in relation to arrangements for the sale of bulk takeaway liquor. In 2004, the NCC is seeking information on whether the Government has undertaken appropriate action to meet its CPA obligations in this area. As outlined in previous reports to the NCC, the Queensland Government contends it has completed its review and reform obligations in relation to the regulation of takeaway liquor. A properly constituted review process was followed and the current arrangements, with a number of key changes (replacing the public needs test with a public interest test and freeing up club and restaurant sales), were found to be in the public interest. It does not believe that any further action is necessary in this regard and is seeking to have the 5 percent permanent reduction in its 2003-04 payments rescinded and no further penalties applied. 1.3.2 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Queensland) Act 1994 In 2003, the NCC assessed the Commonwealth Government as not having met its CPA obligations in relation to legislation establishing the national AgVet chemicals code. Because reform of the national code was delayed, reform of State and Territory legislation that automatically adopts the national code was not completed and the NCC therefore also assessed State and Territory Governments as not having met their CPA obligations in relation to the AgVet Code legislation. For 2004, the NCC is seeking a report on progress with the review and reform of this legislation. The relevant amendments to Commonwealth legislation have now been made, and commenced on 8 October 2003 with the proclamation of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Act (C’wealth) 2003. These amendments to the Federal AgVet Code flow through directly into the State/Territory AgVet Code legislation as the relevant State/Territory AgVet Code legislation automatically ―picks up‖ the Federal Code and any changes to it. Hence, as is also the case with the other States/Territories, Queensland does not need to enact any consequential amendments to comply with its NCP obligations in relation to this legislation. 1.3.3 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 The NCC is seeking advice as to whether the 2002 amendments to Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966 to complete the NCP-related reforms have been proclaimed. Page 6 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council The previously un-proclaimed sections of this Act commenced on 14 December 2003. 1.3.4 Fisheries Act 1994 In 2003, the NCC assessed Queensland as advanced in meeting its CPA clause 5 obligations in relation to the Fisheries Act 1994. However, the NCC identified the following four recommended reforms as incomplete and is seeking advice for its 2004 assessment on reform progress in relation to these matters: replacing the variety of vessel and occupational licences with a single fishery access licence — implementation is subject to a further review that is under way; increasing the recovery of fishery management costs from fishers and reducing cross-subsidies between fishers — implementation is subject to a further review that is under way; removing the minimum quota holding for the Spanner Crab fishery — proposed to be removed in 2004 subject to the preparation of and consultation on a regulatory impact statement. removing the need for prior approval of quota transfers because this restriction is not necessary to maintain the quota register. Single Fishery Access Licence A full review of fishery licensing arrangements has been undertaken with the view to implementing the Review‘s recommendations. The review will result in the abolition of over 3,000 licences of various types without impacting on current access rights. This includes the abolition of tender vessel licences, some fishery symbols, assistant fishery licences and crew licences. The recommendation to increase the term of licences to greater than one year was not endorsed by the Qld Government. The one year term for all licences will be retained at this stage and until QFS is confident that recently introduced and proposed management plans demonstrate sustainability objectives are being met. That is, where it is identified no future major changes are required in a fishery, the term of licence may be extended to longer periods (i.e. for the life of the Management Plan itself). In regard to the recommendation to remove the commercial fisher licence, the Queensland Government considers that there is sufficient justification for enforcement and monitoring purposes to retain some form of identification system for commercial fishers. Therefore, it is proposed that the requirement for a commercial fisher licence be replaced with a simple commercial fisher registration. Fishery Management Cost Recovery The Queensland Government has adopted a ―Whole of Government‖ approach to addressing issues relating to cost recovery and cross subsidisation. QFS has undertaken a full review of service costs and fees associated with these services in accordance with NCP compliant principles previously endorsed by the Queensland Government. In regard to strategies to achieve cost recovery and reduce cross-subsidisation, legal opinion has thus far prevented QFS implementing the recommendations resulting from Page 7 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council the 2000 Fisheries Act review. Legal advice from the Queensland Crown Law Office has expressed significant concerns (particularly in respect of Constitutionality validity) about proposed changes to the fee structure that have been developed by QFS and which are NCP-compliant. QFS is currently liaising further with legal representatives to attempt to develop a schedule of fees that is both legally acceptable (especially on Constitutional grounds, that is to say, compatibility with section 90 of the Constitution) and which also meets NCP principles. This may involve seeking advice from respected external senior counsel. Once this advice has been received, Government will consider the recommendations with a view to implementing cost recovery under a legal and constitutionally valid licensing framework and schedule of fees which are NCP-compliant and which also meet the Government‘s cost recovery targets. The target date for legislative implementation will be undertaken at the earliest opportunity, but timing is dependant on resolution of the legal position in the first instance. Queensland will provide further advice to the NCC on the progress of this matter. This will be co-ordinated by Queensland Treasury. Spanner Crab Minimum Quota Holding In its 2003 progress report, Queensland advised that minimum quota holdings and quota transfers for the spanner crab fishery would be maintained for the time being for administrative efficiency reasons, but were expected to be removed in 2004. However, these requirements were removed from the Spanner Crab Management Plan in line with the original Review recommendations earlier than expected, with effect from 31 October 2003. Quota Transfers Prior Approval The Queensland Government did not accept the recommendation to remove the need for prior administrative approval of quota transfers. It adopted this position because it considered that prior approval is necessary to prevent persons convicted of offences under the legislation from avoiding suspension of their quota by transferring the quota to an associated person or entity. However, upon further examination, it has been decided that prior approval is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome. It has been agreed within DPI to remove the requirement for prior approval of quota transfers from the Fisheries Act 1994 at the first opportunity. The timing of this will be dependent on the positioning of Primary Industries legislation within the Queensland Government‘s overall legislative program. However, as a miscellaneous ―Primary Industries Legislation Amendment‖ (PILA) Bill is proposed for 2004, this is a suitable legislative vehicle for this amendment. The timing of this amendment Bill is yet to be determined by the Queensland Government and will depend on overall legislative priorities, but is expected to be in the second half of 2004. Queensland will provide advice to the NCC on the progress of the amending legislation. Page 8 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.5 Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 The NCC is seeking advice on progress with repeal of this Act as recommended by the Review. It is proposed to include a provision for the repeal of the Sawmills Licensing Act 1936 as part of a miscellaneous ‗Primary Industries Legislation Amendments Bill‘ during 2004. The timing of this Bill is still to be determined and will depend on the Government‘s overall legislative priorities. However, it is anticipated that the ‗PILA Bill‘ will be drafted prior to 30 June 2004, although it may not have been introduced into the Legislative Assembly by that date. Queensland will provide advice to the NCC on the progress of the repeal legislation, and in the first instance, will advise the NCC when approval has been given for the drafting of the PILA Bill. 1.3.6 Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 (taxis) In its 2003 Assessment, the NCC assessed Queensland as not meeting its CPA obligations in relation to the legislation regulating taxis and hire cars in that there was no progress up to mid-2003 in reducing barriers to entry. For 2004, the NCC is seeking an update on any actual or proposed reforms of the taxi and hire car legislation since mid-2003. In August 2003, the Queensland Government met its CPA obligations by endorsing the reforms recommended by the Review Report. Implementation is now under way as follows: regular release of new licences will result from the improved review mechanism which is being developed to ensure the supply of taxi numbers matches the demand using performance criteria focused on waiting time. It is expected that this will result in regular increases in the number of taxi service licenses. This includes the present consideration of an additional 100 licenses in Brisbane over the next 12 months; the review mechanism will be applied regularly (annually where possible) to every taxi service area in the state thus ensuring review of how well supply is meeting demand; stretch, high luxury limousines, specialty, veteran and classic vehicles will be able to operate without a license. This will open the market to a wide range of new operators and will provide a wider range of choice to consumers and increase competition; and the requirement for a taxi or limousine service license to provide tours in passenger cars is being removed. In addition, the Government is committed to review and reform, and is presently in discussion with the community and the taxi industry to amend and reduce regulation to allow a range of new and flexible services (possibly new vehicles) to be provided to meet consumer demand. Page 9 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.7 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Rail Safety)1 The NCC is seeking a report on progress with the Bill to implement the recommendations of the Review of rail safety provisions and other matters in the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. The Review of the Rail Safety legislation recommended retaining the existing rail safety regulatory arrangements. The Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Bill 2003, which amended the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, was passed on 8 September 2003. It was assented to on 18 September 2003 and commenced on 1 December 2003. It included amendments to reflect the recommendations of the New South Wales inquiry into the 1999 Glenbrook rail accident and to clarify the role of the Chief Executive in the regulation of rail safety. A copy of the Review Report is to be made available on the Queensland Transport website at www.transport.qld.gov.au 1.3.8 Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 1994 — Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (activities outside ports) In its 2002 assessment, the NCC stated that ―while Queensland’s legislation review and reform activity does not fulfil CPA clause 5 commitments, the impact on competition may be negligible. In as much as the restrictions in the other legislation which mirror these restrictions are in the public interest there is no need for further NCP action from Queensland in relation to the Transport Infrastructure Act.‖ The NCC indicated it was awaiting the Government’s response to the review of the Land Act 1994. For 2004, the NCC is asking whether Queensland is proposing any changes in this regard. In light of the NCC‘s assessment that the impact on competition may be negligible, there is no need for further NCP action from Queensland, and the restrictions identified in the Land Act do not relate to port activities,2 Queensland does not propose to make any changes. As with occupational therapists and speech pathologists (see below), Queensland would argue that it should not be assessed as non-compliant in relation to the review and reform of this legislation because of the essentially insignificant nature of the restriction. Under the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, all subordinate legislation expires on 1 September first occurring after the tenth anniversary of its making. As a result, the Transport Infrastructure (Ports) Regulation 1994 is due to expire in 2004. The current plan is to remake the Regulation as it currently stands with only minor amendments and clarifications. During this process, the proposed changes will be examined and if necessary, may be subject to a Regulatory Impact Statement. 1 The reference to the Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Regulation 1996 in the title of this item has been removed as the Regulation does not relate to rail safety issues. The Regulation relates to the obligations of person on railways, abandoned property, vehicles, annual levy and evidence. Amendments to the Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Regulation 1996 last occurred in 2003 in regard to non-competition issues -- injurious and nuisance behaviour (i.e. spitting). 2 The restrictions identified in the Land Act relate to pastoral leases, not port-related activities. Page 10 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.9 Health practitioner legislation (practice restrictions): Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1979; Dental Act 1971; Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Act 1991; Medical Act 1939; Optometrists Act 1974 / Optometrists Registration Act 2001; Physiotherapy Act 1964; Physiotherapists Registration Act 2001; Podiatrists Act 1969; Podiatrists Registration Act 2001 The NCC is seeking on progress with this legislation, including any significant amendments required by Parliament. The Health Legislation Amendment Act 2003 was passed and assented to in October 2003. The amendments in the Health Legislation Amendment Act 2003 implement the recommendations of Public Benefit Tests undertaken in connection with the review of core practices and dentistry reforms. The amendments did not remove the restrictions on the practice of pharmacy contained in the Pharmacists Registration Act 2001 (which were preserved from the repealed Pharmacy Act 1976). These restrictions will be assessed when a planned further consideration of the new drugs and poisons legislation takes place. The deferral will have no significant impact on the provision of pharmaceutical services and is consistent with the recommendations of the COAG Senior Officials‘ Working Group (established after the Wilkinson review). The Working Group supported the Wilkinson Review recommendation (that legislative requirements restricting the practice of pharmacy to registered pharmacists be retained) but as an interim measure, to be revisited at the same time as other retained legislation. The core practices reforms commenced on the date of assent of the Health Legislation Amendment Act 2003. The amendments arising from the review of restrictions on the practice of dentistry will commence on 1 July 2004 to allow sufficient time for implementation of the amendments that provide for the registration of dental auxiliaries. 1.3.10 Nursing Act 1992 The Review of the Nursing Act 1992 was completed in August 2003. The NCC is seeking a report on progress with legislation amendments in response to the Review’s findings. Cabinet authorisation for the preparation of the amendments to the Nursing Act 1992 was given in October 2003. The proposed amendments are consistent with the Review recommendations and will be included in a Health Legislation Amendment Bill that is expected to be introduced in the second half of 2004. The continuation of the current restrictions until that time will have no significant impact on the provision of nursing or other professional services. 1.3.11 Occupational Therapists Act 1979 In 2002, the NCC assessed Queensland as not meeting its CPA obligations in relation to the Occupational Therapists legislation in that it provides for reservation of title. The NCC acknowledged that the adverse impacts on competition are considered small. The NCC is seeking information as to whether Queensland intends to alter its legislation in this regard. Page 11 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council The Occupational Therapists Act 1979 was repealed and replaced by the Occupational Therapists Registration Act 2001. Queensland does not intend to amend the Act to remove the restrictions on title as the impact on competition, if any, is acknowledged by the NCC as being small. Protection of title is a basic consumer protection measure and is common in health practitioner legislation in Australia. To alter the legislation to address what is an essentially insignificant restriction on competition in the context of the occupational therapy market would represent introducing competition for its own sake, an approach clearly not consistent with CPA requirements. Therefore, Queensland would argue that it should not be assessed as non-compliant in relation to the review and reform of this legislation. To insist on doing so risks trivialising the important NCP reform process. 1.3.12 Speech Pathologists Act 1979 In 2002, the NCC assessed Queensland as not meeting its CPA obligations in relation to the Speech Pathologists legislation in that it provides for reservation of title. The NCC acknowledged that the adverse impacts on competition are considered small. The NCC is seeking information as to whether Queensland intends to alter its legislation in this regard. The Speech Pathologists Act 1979 was repealed and replaced by the Speech Pathologists Registration Act 2001. Queensland does not intend to amend the Act to remove the restrictions on title as the impact on competition, if any, is acknowledged by the NCC as being small. Protection of title is a basic consumer protection measure and is common in health practitioner legislation in Australia. As with occupational therapists, Queensland would argue that it should not be assessed as non-compliant in relation to the review and reform of this legislation because of the essentially insignificant nature of the restriction. 1.3.13 Pharmacy Act 1976 In its 2003 progress report, the Queensland Government anticipated introducing reforms in 2003. The NCC is seeking an update on these reforms, including whether they are consistent with recommendations of the CoAG Senior Officials’ Working Group (established after the Wilkinson review) relating to removing numerical restrictions on ownership and amending pecuniary interest provisions. The Pharmacy Act 1976 was repealed and replaced by the Pharmacists Registration Act 2001. States and Territories were advised in July 2003 that the CoAG Senior Official‘s Working Group‘s response to the recommendations of the National Review of Pharmacy Regulation (the Wilkinson Review) would not be considered by CoAG, and that States and Territories should proceed to develop their own responses to the Review. Queensland is working to progress the matter with a view to achieving a nationally consistent approach to pharmacy ownership and is continuing to monitor developments in other States and Territories before developing its response to the Wilkinson Review. Page 12 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.14 Health Act 1937 (drugs and poisons) The NCC is seeking a report on progress with the review and reform of this legislation which was incomplete owing to interjurisdictional processes (implementation of the recommendations of the Galbally review). Queensland had proposed to enact legislation to adopt the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. This is no longer necessary as the policy objective of the proposed legislation will be able to be achieved by way of Commonwealth legislation to be enacted under a Treaty for the regulation of therapeutic products that has been entered into between the Australian and New Zealand Governments. Legislative amendments to implement the other reforms arising from the National Review will be made by 30 June 2004. 1.3.15 Legal Practitioners Act 1995 The NCC is seeking a report on progress with the review and reform of this legislation which was incomplete owing to interjurisdictional processes. The Legal Profession Act 2003 (yet to be proclaimed) is based on the latest draft of the national model laws. It provides for the first stage of the reforms in the areas of admission, national practice, conduct rules, complaints and discipline, the financial arrangements and incorporated legal practices. It also provides for structural changes to the complaints and disciplinary regime to make it more independent, accountable and effective, viz: the establishment of the new Legal Services Commission, with an independent investigative capacity to deal with all complaints; a new Legal Practice Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge; a new Legal Practice Committee to hear less serious charges; and a single admissions board. Interest on solicitors‘ trust accounts will be brought under government control to ensure a more rigorous, accountable and transparent process is applied for the use of this money. The commencement of the new arrangements will depend on the relevant appointments and associated structural arrangements being administratively put in place. The explanatory notes for the Bill included the following statements. ―Where the national model laws proposals are still to be finalised for consideration by SCAG, it is proposed that the reforms be implemented in two stages: ..It is expected that the remaining reforms (including in the areas of trust accounts, client agreement and costs review, fidelity cover, multi-disciplinary practices and foreign lawyers) would be included in a second Bill next year with any further changes that are desirable for consistency with the final national model laws approach.‖ Page 13 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.16 Health Act 1937 (hairdressing) The NCC is seeking an update on progress with the amending legislation to implement the recommendations of the review of this legislation.. The Public Health (Infection Control for Personal Appearance Services) Act 2003 was passed in October 2003. The commencement date of the Act has been fixed for 1 July 2004 to allow sufficient time for implementation of the reforms. 1.3.17 Pawnbrokers Act 1984; Second-hand Dealers and Collectors Act 1984 The NCC is seeking an update on progress with new legislation to, among other things, implement the recommendations of the review of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers legislation. The combined Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003 was assented to on 22 October 2003. 1.3.18 Travel Agents Act 1988 The NCC is seeking a report on progress with the review and reform of the Travel Agents legislation which was incomplete owing to interjurisdictional processes. Queensland is reviewing steps to implement the recommendations that the current licence exemption threshold be lifted to $50,000 and the exemption for Crown owned business entities be removed. 1.3.19 Auctioneers and Agents Act 1971 (maximum commissions for auctioneers and real estate agents); Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 The NCC is seeking an update of the Government’s consideration of regulatory options in relation to commissions. Amendments to Property Agents and Motor Dealers Regulation 2001 to give effect to de-regulation of motor dealing and auctioneering commissions and buyers‘ premiums was approved by Governor-in-Council on 20 November 2003 and gazetted on 21 November 2003. Regulation of maximum commissions for real estate agents and auctioneers of residential property are to continue. It is proposed a further review of the regulation of real estate commissions is to be undertaken in July-August 2004 in order to further apprise the NCC of progress in implementing the original NCP recommendation to deregulate all commission scales. Page 14 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.20 Workcover provision) Queensland Act 1996 (monopoly insurance In 2003, the NCC assessed the review and reform of Queensland’s workers compensation legislation as incomplete on the basis that it decided it could not complete its assessment pending the outcome of a Productivity Commission Inquiry commissioned by the Commonwealth Government. For 2004, the NCC is seeking information on whether Queensland is considering any further changes to workers compensation insurance arrangements, especially relating to monopoly provision. In respect its National Competition Policy obligations regarding workers‘ compensation, the Queensland government contends that it has met all undertakings regarding both the spirit and the letter of the COAG agreed requirements for NCP review arrangements. As reported in both the 2001 and 2002 reports, an NCP review of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 was undertaken in 2000 and examined nine provisions which potentially restricted competition. An Inter-departmental committee undertook the review following a full Public Benefit Test conducted by independent consultants. The key recommendations of the report were discussed in detail in the 2002 report and are as follows: that the requirement contained in the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 that employers must maintain accident insurance for their workers be retained; that the public monopoly for the Queensland workers‘ compensation system be retained; that Q-COMP become a completely separate entity from WorkCover to ensure independent regulation of the market; that the current self-insurance licensing criteria be retained from 21 May 2001 for a further three years at which time the full impact of self-insurance on the Queensland workers‘ compensation market can be better assessed; and that the self-insurance criteria be reviewed in three years‘ time from 2001. In accordance with the requirements of the review process, the findings of the PBT and submissions by stakeholders and interested parties to the review were considered and weighed against the Competition Principles Agreement, in particular clause 5 – that restrictions on competition should arise only if the benefits to the community exceed the costs, and that the objectives of the legislation can only be achieved by restricting competition. In reaching the above position, the review committee concluded that in respect to the matter of the legislated monopoly there is, on balance a clear case for a net community benefit from its continuation. It must be noted that in respect to the case for demonstration of net public benefit for both monopoly provision and premium controls, Queensland has a consistent record of maintaining comparable benefit levels and full access to Common Law in a fully funded scheme with the lowest average premium rate of any state jurisdiction. The required legislation to give effect to the key findings of the review was passed by the Queensland parliament in May 2003 to take effect from 1 July 2003. This action fulfilled the Queensland Government‘s commitment to the review of Workers‘ compensation in line with the timeframe for completion agreed by COAG. Page 15 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Further, the NCC in its 2003 assessment states that it cannot complete its assessment relating to monopoly provision and premium controls in view of possible implications for workers compensation flowing from changes to public liability insurance in several jurisdictions and the yet to be completed Productivity Commission inquiry into possible national frameworks for workers compensation and OHS. Given this stated position, it is inappropriate that any monetary penalty should be considered pending a full evaluation of the final recommendations and jurisdictional response. Monopoly Provider issues Public goods/externalities -In providing the Queensland response to issues canvassed by the NCC in the 2003 report, the following observation was made: Competing insurers with limited workers compensation portfolio holdings within a jurisdiction may in fact be inclined to select for good claims performance in order to gain or maintain competitive advantage, thus leaving poorer performing employers exposed to increased difficulty and cost in obtaining mandatory insurance cover. This outcome has been supported as desirable in the 2003 assessment, however the issue needs to be considered in its entirety. Poor claims performance is relative and is not always due entirely to factors within the control of the employer. For instance certain industries and occupations have greater inherent risks than others and competing insurers may in fact select against these high risk groups leaving them exposed to increased premiums resulting from smaller, high risk portfolios. As a consequence this could see significant increases in costs and a resultant lessening of their competitiveness over the cost structures prevailing in the high scale monopoly environment. Economies of scope - outsourcing The impact of economies of scope has also been cited as being potentially available within monopoly environments through the outsourcing of activities such as premium collection and claims management. It cannot be assumed however that savings will automatically flow from outsourced arrangements. The introduction of the profit element and the necessity for provision of services in a geographically diverse and widely populated jurisdiction such as Queensland may mitigate any anticipated savings or economies. Multiple product offerings - Similarly, the value of a wide insurance product range in achieving cost reductions by private insurers has been identified as significant by the Council and not available to monopoly insurers. A counter argument is of course the expertise gained from the development of expert systems for the delivery and evaluation of a dedicated product and a discreet range of services. There are also the economies and market power of the monopoly provider in negotiating favourable arrangements with medical rehabilitation and other service providers. Contrary to the view expressed by the NCC in respect of the motivation for the monopoly insurer to pass on savings in the form of reduced premiums, the direct nexus between economic performance and the fixed costs of overheads such as workers‘ compensation are more likely to produce such a result in a government monopoly environment than in the case of large private insurers with the imperative to improve returns for shareholders. Page 16 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Information asymmetry While the issue of information asymmetry is a factor in respect of workers‘ compensation insurance, it is not as significant a matter in the Queensland environment as suggested in the NCC assessment. Factors such as a single database record for all employers and a detailed individual claims and underwriting history mean that well informed profiles of individual employers are available in assessing premiums. Risk Profiles While industry based premium rates are the basis of the calculation of premium, a five year individual claims history is used in calculation of an individual premium rate for each employer with a discount of 50% of the industry rate being possible. The extensive and historical nature of the data and the availability of data mining and matching techniques provide a comprehensive capacity for monitoring of fraud from both a claims and policy underwriting perspective. In respect of the Queensland experience, rather than restricting benefits and access to Common Law damages in order to control premiums, average premium rates have been progressively reduced over the last five years at the same time as benefit levels have been increased and full unfettered access to Common Law has been maintained. Rehabilitation Changes introduced as a direct outcome of the NCP review have seen the establishment of an independent regulatory authority with responsibility for oversighting and determining adequate standards for rehabilitation delivery by WorkCover and selfinsurers. They also have an audit and assessment role and a case review function and are responsible for reporting performance to the portfolio Minister via a Board of Directors. Summary While recognising the differing views expressed by the NCC in respect of the a number of the outcomes of the review of Queensland workers‘ Compensation legislation, there have been no compelling arguments advanced which would in any way justify the view that Queensland has not met both the spirit and the detail of its undertakings. Further, none of the arguments advanced provide any proven alternative to the revised Queensland scheme of arrangements when considered against Clause 5 of the Competition Principles Agreement. By any assessment, Queensland has in place a fair, responsive scheme that balances the rights of injured workers with the need for competitive and affordable premiums for employers. The scheme delivers benefit levels comparable with other jurisdictions, maintains unfettered access to common law while delivering the lowest average premium rate in Australia for the last four consecutive years and has majority stakeholder support for the revised arrangements resulting from the reform process. To make fundamental changes to such a successful scheme solely to accommodate what are unproven views of alternative delivery models would be irresponsible at this juncture. Further, the NCC in its 2003 assessment states that it cannot complete its assessment relating to monopoly provision and premium controls. The possible implications for Page 17 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council workers compensation flowing from changes to public liability insurance in several jurisdictions and the yet to be completed Productivity Commission inquiry into possible national frameworks for workers compensation and OHS are cited as the reason. Given this stated position, it is inappropriate that any monetary penalty should be considered pending a full evaluation of the final outcomes and recommendations and any related jurisdictional responses. The matters of the outsourcing of claims management by WorkCover and review of the criteria for Self-Insurance licensing were identified in the NCP review process as matters for further consideration. The Government at that time deferred these reviews for three years in order that the impact of successive changes then only recently introduced to the scheme could be assessed. The review of these competition elements of the Queensland workers‘ compensation scheme will now proceed for completion in the 2004/05 financial year. 1.3.21 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 In 2003, the NCC assessed Queensland as not meeting its CPA obligations in relation to its public sector superannuation legislation3 on the basis that the Act underpins monopoly provision of superannuation. In 2004, the NCC is seeking to know whether the Government intends to consider the introduction of choice of superannuation provider. In 2003, Queensland completed a public benefit test (PBT) of restrictions in its public sector superannuation legislation in accordance with its obligations under clause 5 of the CPA. It is considered that this PBT adequately addressed the dual test outlined in clause 5, in that: (a) the PBT demonstrated a clear net benefit to the community as a whole. Whilst it is recognised that the report focused on the benefits and costs for the Government and its employees, this is considered appropriate given that these parties are the greatest stakeholders for these arrangements; and as outlined in the PBT report, one of the objectives of the legislation is to ensure equitable access of Queensland public sector employees to a superannuation scheme that maximises benefits to members. The report highlighted the significant advantages of QSuper membership in that the current arrangements provide retirement outcomes for Queensland public sector employees which are superior to those that would otherwise be available to them. (b) The following information is provided in response to the NCC‘s questioning the extent to which the Queensland‘s review considered the interests of other parties and the community as a whole: (i) Remaining employees – Although it is considered that the likely transfer of employees to alternative providers under a choice model would be small (see (iv) 3 The legislation which governs public sector superannuation in Queensland comprises the Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 and Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1970 Page 18 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council below), the likely impact if the transfer of employees were significant was considered. If a significant transfer of members were to occur, this would reduce the existing economies attained by the QSuper Fund. Employees who remained in the scheme would likely be worse off, due to increased fees and transactional costs. A drain of employees would also impact upon the actuarial basis of QSuper, with potential detriment to existing benefit levels and cost assumptions of QSuper‘s defined benefit account and self-insurance arrangements; (ii) Transferring employees -- On average, there is no evidence to suggest that employees who elect to leave QSuper would be any better at selecting a fund than the QSuper Trustees. It is possible and even likely that employees will select a fund on the basis of marketing or promotional activity, rather than fundamental product elements such as benefit design, insurance coverage, fees, investment risk and performance. Consequently, the most likely outcome would be that transferring employees will be no better off than under the current arrangements and are likely, on average, to be worse off. The superannuation industry is relatively new, offering complex products in an environment of constant review and legislative change. The industry as a whole has not yet demonstrated the attributes of a mature, prudent, well run industry. Furthermore, there is concern in the marketplace that the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) is unable to properly regulate providers. This fear has been realised with the devastating failure of several superannuation funds, with workers losing their accrued entitlements. APRA‘s own submission on superannuation to the Productivity Commission‘s NCP Review in 2001 acknowledges these supervisory challenges: ―…superannuation is unlike any other sector prudentially regulated by APRA. The most significant distinction is that in the bulk of cases, unlike the situation in the banking or insurance sectors, the credit, market or operational risks arising from a fund’s activities are borne directly by the fund members. Furthermore, the complexity and lack of transparency in disclosure within the industry represents a challenge for individuals to select between alternative providers. APRA‘s report to the Productivity Commission also states: ―Despite its size, growth and significance, it is fair to say that community understanding of superannuation is not high, in part due to the nature of the product, as well as the constant changes that have characterised superannuation arrangements over the years.‖ APRA‘s statement highlights the asymmetry of information between superannuation providers and the community, revealing a significant market failure. Consequently, it is difficult for individuals, with confidence, to ensure that they obtain the right balance of risk and return. At this point in time, the Commonwealth Government‘s Financial Services Reform regime has not been fully developed to ensure adequate disclosure of fees and charges. The Commonwealth‘s inability to pass certain sections of the Financial Services Reform Regulations is of particular concern, and is one of the reasons that choice of fund has not progressed in the Federal arena. These conditions continue to exist, with no indication that the current deficiencies in disclosure are being resolved. Page 19 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council (iii) Queensland Government -- The Queensland Government (and by extension, taxpayers and the wider community who ultimately fund government expenditure) would be worse off under a choice model, as it would need to make contributions to a range of superannuation providers. This would increase expenses for Queensland Government agencies, particularly in the areas of payroll administration and liaison with numerous funds. These costs would be exacerbated if employees were able to periodically change their provider. If choice was introduced, the Queensland Government would also bear the cost of amending existing legislation and informing relevant stakeholders of the changes. From a human resources perspective, the Queensland Government through the Government Superannuation Office provides all the necessary superannuation information to employees, including a comprehensive seminar program. If employees move to providers with lower levels of support, this may increase the burden on agencies to assist their employees with information regarding their superannuation. Queensland‘s current superannuation arrangements allow continuity of membership for employees transferring between Queensland Government agencies, which is a common occurrence. Under a choice model, the size of some Queensland agencies would make it administratively impossible for employees to nominate their personal choice of provider. Consequently, employees would be limited to a range of providers, which may not include the member‘s preferred fund. Further, it is likely that the range of available providers would vary from agency to agency, particularly for employers such as statutory authorities and Government-owned corporations. This would make it difficult for employees to consolidate their accumulated entitlements into one fund throughout their career. Further, this loss of portability may impact upon employees‘ death and disablement insurance coverage, which contains implicit qualifying periods. As QSuper operates on a cost recovery basis, the Government does not raise any revenue from the scheme. If management of Queensland‘s superannuation arrangements were handled by the private sector, the Government would need to pay an administrator to run the Fund. The costs of this model would ultimately be borne by taxpayers. Further, as the Government bears the investment risk for the defined benefit scheme, it would be at the mercy of the appointed investment manager. For these reasons, the Government has a vested interest in the prudent management and supervision of the scheme, and so has valid reasons for retaining control of the administration. Finally, a potential inequity of benefit outcomes could arise from the varied provision of superannuation across agencies, for employees who are otherwise remunerated in a consistent manner. This has potential implications for industrial relations in the State, where superannuation entitlements and other employee benefits are part of a delicate balance in employee remuneration. (iv) Superannuation Industry -- In its 2003 assessment, the NCC stated that QSuper‘s Public Benefit Test focussed on the cost-benefit calculus for the Fund and its members, rather than on the broader market impact for the provision of superannuation services. This approach is not considered unreasonable, given that the Fund and its members are the primary stakeholders under the current Page 20 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council arrangements. Further, it has been assessed that the employer and member demand for alternative arrangements is very low, providing limited potential gains for the private sector. Employees who contribute to QSuper already have a significant amount of choice. Individuals are able to choose between a defined benefit account and 4 investment options within an accumulation account. This range is scheduled to be expanded in the near future, reflecting the industry‘s move towards asset class investment options. QSuper offers a comprehensive suite of products that satisfy employee needs through the accumulation phase and into retirement, and this is provided at one of the lowest fee rates of Australian superannuation funds. Whilst Queensland Government employees have a significant amount of choice under QSuper, few seek to change from the default option, and those that do are demonstrating a strong aversion to risk. Since the introduction of transfer arrangements between QSuper defined benefit and accumulation accounts in 2000, only 1.3% of contributing employees have exercised this choice. For accumulation account holders, only 5% of funds have been directed to an investment option more aggressive than the default. The relatively small uptake of product choice within QSuper is despite a Statewide seminar campaign to explain these new benefit and investment options, together with ongoing seminar and marketing programs. Market research in 2003 highlighted that 38% of accumulation account holders had fully considered the range of investment options available to them and were satisfied with the default option selected by the Trustees. A further 51% of those that were surveyed advised that they were happy to leave investment decisions to QSuper. These results demonstrate that employees are comfortable with the product choice that they currently have and are confident with the QSuper Trustees‘ ability to make appropriate investment decisions. Whilst all funds experience some leakage, QSuper maintains a very high retention rate. For employees leaving the Queensland Government before age 55, around only 10% of funds are transferred to other superannuation providers. The majority of this outflow is likely due to individuals wishing to consolidate their superannuation monies with contributions from their new employer. For those of retirement age, around 15% of monies is transferred to other funds. QSuper‘s research has shown that most retiring employees who transfer to other funds, do so on the recommendation of financial planners, who are primarily remunerated on a commission basis. Retiring employees also transfer part of their account balance to other funds to seek post-retirement products not offered by QSuper, such as complying pensions. However, these outflows do not reflect on employee satisfaction with QSuper products and services during their public sector employment. QSuper receives very few requests from employees wanting to direct contributions to alternative providers during the contribution phase of membership. Upon termination of employment, a small minority elect to transfer to other providers, mainly for reasons not associated with QSuper‘s performance or product design. Consequently, it is considered that very few employees would be likely to exercise choice of superannuation provider if it were offered during their employment. Page 21 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Those who have terminated employment already have the ability to transfer their QSuper entitlements elsewhere. QSuper‘s PBT indicated that, whilst it is a large fund, it is relatively small in the broader market context, comprising 1.78% of the Australian superannuation market. Upon review, QSuper‘s current fund balance of $11 billion overstates the potential gain for private sector providers, as it includes post-employment monies that are already subject to competition. Further, it is unlikely that defined benefit account holders would exercise an option to move to a private sector accumulation account, given that only a very limited number have opted to do so within QSuper, and this number has decreased rapidly since 2000 when it was introduced, even though the option was widely promoted at that time and since. On this basis, the potential gain for private sector providers is very small, as it would be limited to employed members holding a QSuper accumulation account. This category holds $1.8 billion of the QSuper funds under management, which represents only 17% of the QSuper Fund and 0.3% of the superannuation market ($548.5 billion at September 2003 quarter, Source: APRA website). Even then, experience to date provides evidence that only a small proportion of this category would actually choose to do so. The NCC‘s 2003 assessment recognised that the overall impact of the current restriction is difficult to determine. Whilst it is acknowledged that the private sector would realise some gains if the restriction were removed, there is much evidence to suggest that these gains would be very small. It is clear to the Queensland Government that the benefits of the current restriction far outweigh any existing costs, or potential costs, to the community from alternative models of provision. Queensland’s Obligations under NCP The State‘s obligations under clause 5 of the NCP framework are to review restrictive legislation in order to: clarify the objectives of the legislation; identify the nature of the restriction on competition; analyse the likely effect of the restriction on competition and the economy generally; assess and balance the costs and benefits of the restriction; and consider alternative means for achieving the same result including non-legislative approaches. The Queensland Government has developed a substantial public benefit case in respect of its superannuation legislation that addresses each of these issues. The NCC has not accepted these findings, despite its acknowledgement that the overall impact of the restriction is difficult to determine, and QSuper is able to choose investment managers and administrative providers. Without providing any evidence in support of its position, the NCC appears to have adopted the position that competition, through choice of provider in this instance, is justified for its own sake. This would appear to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of NCP which requires a consideration of the cost and benefits to the community as a whole. Page 22 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Under the terms of the NCP agreement, restrictions on competition are allowed if it is in the public interest. It is necessary to consider the community as a whole, including the Government, providers and taxpayers. Queensland‘s review of superannuation has considered all stakeholders and demonstrated a very clear net public benefit to retain the current restriction. A significant portion of QSuper could not readily be detached from Government control. QSuper‘s defined benefit scheme is intertwined with its accumulation account. Consequently, the defined benefit portion of QSuper could not be outsourced unless the Government was to sell the whole business. The NCP obligations do not require the Government to sell, privatise or contract out a whole business. Consequently, it could be argued that a major portion of Queensland‘s superannuation arrangements is not subject to review. Choice of Fund As stated earlier, Queensland‘s existing superannuation arrangements represent a significant amount of choice in terms of benefit design and investment options. QSuper‘s investment choice enables employees to meet their individual superannuation needs and preferences by providing them with the ability to choose how their superannuation is invested. Choice already exists for all departing employees. There is no evidence to suggest that Queensland public sector employees, on average, incur any costs or suffer any detriment from restrictions in their choice of fund. Further, it is certainly not clear that the introduction of choice for these employees would give rise to a net public benefit, particularly when existing disclosure rules would not enable them to make an informed choice. At this time, the Queensland Government and representative unions are concerned that public sector employees would be at risk of exercising poor choice and move to superannuation funds that do not perform as well in terms of investment returns, risk and cost. Australian employers do not have to offer any choice of fund. The community standard is to pay employer contributions according to an industrial framework. This model represents the widespread use of corporate and industry superannuation funds. Queensland is particularly concerned that the NCC, by insisting on jurisdictions providing choice irrespective of the costs and benefits, will provide support for the Commonwealth Government to use competition payments to force a policy on the States and Territories which it has been unable to advance through normal Parliamentary processes. The Queensland Government contends that the provision of superannuation remains an internal matter for the Government and is central to staff remuneration. Conclusion Queensland has demonstrated that the potential market benefits from offering choice of fund to its public sector employees would not outweigh the likely costs to be borne by Queensland taxpayers, the Government and its employees. The NCC‘s rejection of these findings has not adequately been justified, which suggests that there is an attempt to impose a particular outcome without adequate concern or regard to community costs. Page 23 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Whilst there may be some employees that wish to make their own superannuation arrangements, they are considered to be in a small minority. Both the Government and unions believe that there is a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that all employees are provided a low cost savings environment through QSuper. There is strong support from Queensland public sector employers and employees and their representative unions for the current arrangements, which are stable in their existing form. Any changes to the current arrangements could have significant industrial relations and economic implications for the Queensland public sector, which would be detrimental to the broader community. 1.3.22 Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 The NCC is seeking advice of the progress of legislation to implement the recommendations of the Review of the Funeral Benefit Business legislation. Amendments to the Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982 to implement the recommendations of the review of this legislation were included in the legislation which established the new Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003 which was assented to on 22 October 2003. 1.3.23 Credit Act 1987 The NCC is seeking advice of whether reform completion is likely? As previously advised, the Act will be repealed when the final legal case is completed. When this will occur is unknown and beyond the control of the Queensland Government. The impact on competition of provisions in this Act, if any, is likely to be very trivial as the number of loans still remaining under its control since it was replaced by the Consumer Credit Code in 1996 is likely to be very small. It is over 7 years since any new loans were subject to this Act and the type of loan it regulated generally had terms of 5 years or less. Other than one outstanding court case, the Act has ceased to operate. Queensland would argue that it should be listed as ―complete‖ on the review and reform schedule. 1.3.24 Gambling Legislation Keno Act 1996; Charitable and Non-profit Gambling Act 1999; Gaming Machine Act 1991; Wagering Act 1998 (TAB) The NCC is seeking advice on the recommendations of the final Review Report for Queensland’s gambling legislation and the Government’s response. The Review of the Queensland‘s gambling legislation was completed in December 2003. It recommended the current restrictions on competition be retained as they are in the public interest. As a result no legislative amendments are necessary. The Report is available at http://www.treasury.qld.gov.au/office/knowledge/docs/ncp/index.shtml Page 24 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 1.3.25 Interactive Gambling (Player Protection) Act 1998 The NCC has listed this legislation as incomplete owing to delays caused by interjurisdictional processes. Reform completion depends on resolution of Australian Government legislation. This legislation was considered as part of the overall review of Queensland‘s gambling regulation and any restrictions found to be in the public interest. In any event, any further consideration of issues covered by this legislation cannot be progressed until the interim ban imposed on interactive gambling by the Commonwealth, which is totally beyond the Queensland Government‘s control, is addressed. For both these reasons, this legislation should not be included as an outstanding matter for assessment of Queensland‘s progress. 1.3.26 Grammar Schools Act 1975 The NCC is seeking information on the nature of reform in relation to the Grammar Schools legislation and its timing. An initial Review was completed in September 1997. A second review in 2002 recommended removing the minimum financial requirement for the establishment of a Grammar School. A third review, completed in March 2003, considered the impact of other legislation for the accreditation of non-State schools and the financial administration of grammar schools. The NCC was advised of the outcome of the review in 2003 and that the resulting Bill was expected to be introduced and debated in August/September 2003. Queensland can now advise that the legislation was amended in late 2003 under the Grammar Schools and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003. 1.3.27 Child Care Act 1991; Child Care (Child Care Centres) Regulation 1991 and Child Care (Family Day Care) Regulation 1991 The NCC is seeking confirmation that Act and Regulations come into effect on 1 September 2003. The Child Care Act 2002 (which repealed the Child Care Act 1991) and the Child Care Regulation 2003 (which repealed the Child Care (Child Care Centres) Regulation 1991 and the Child Care (Family Day Care) Regulation 1991 both commenced on 1 September 2003. The identified restrictions in the new legislation were subject to a Public Benefit Test conducted in accordance with the Competition Principles Agreement and a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) was also prepared in accordance with the Queensland Statutory Instruments Act. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest. An extensive public consultation process did not elicit any adverse feedback from the child care sector and related stakeholders on the proposed regulatory framework. 1.3.28 Surveyors Act 1977 The NCC is seeking information on the progress of the Surveyors legislation which was introduced into Parliament in 2003. Page 25 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council The Surveyors Bill 2003 was introduced to Parliament on 27 May 2003 and the Act was passed by Parliament and assented to in October 2003. The new Act retains the current model for regulation of surveyors based on competency rather than qualifications, and makes other reforms based on the outcomes of the review and consultation. Regulations to give effect to the amendments are scheduled to be introduced by end June 2004 with the new Act commencing at that time. 1.4 Non-Priority Review Legislation In its 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking an update of the status of the following nonpriority legislation in which review and reform activity was incomplete at the time of the 2003 assessment. 1.4.1 Consumer Credit Legislation Consumer Credit (Qld) Act 1994, Consumer Credit Regulation 1995, Consumer Credit Code The key recommendations of the national review of consumer credit legislation were to: maintain the current provisions of the Code and, as per the Post Implementation Review, review the definitions of the Code to ensure that the terms 'conditional sale agreements', 'terms sale of land', 'tiny terms contracts' and 'solicitor lending' were brought within the scope of the Codes; and provide for a simplified "Schumer Box" format containing essential financial information to enhance the disclosure provisions within the Code. A consultation review document relating to the definitions is being prepared by Queensland and when complete, will be released for consultation. A discussion paper relating to the "Schumer Box" has been prepared by NSW. The Office of Regulation Review has advised preparation of a Regulatory Impact Statement is not necessary. A paper containing proposed amendments has been agreed to by the Working Party established to facilitate the implementation of the review‘s recommendations. It is proposed to seek Queensland Cabinet approval to commence technical redrafting of the Code in order to implement the NCP recommendations. 1.4.2 Financial Intermediaries Act 1996 The Act provides prudentially-based supervision of cooperative housing societies, terminating building societies and other similar entities. It had been proposed to repeal the Act without review on the expectation that the supervision of all such institutions would be transferred to the Australian Government following the establishment of APRA. However, some cooperative housing societies do not meet the solvency requirements for transfer. The Act is being retained pending a long term policy solution for the administration of co-operative housing societies. The Act was included in the original 1996 Legislation Review Timetable in line with the Queensland Government policy at the time that an Act should be listed based on a preliminary assessment that it may contain potentially restrictive provisions, even Page 26 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council relatively minor restrictions. The more detailed identification of restrictive provisions which forms part of the review process was not undertaken because it was expected that the Act would be repealed. Because of the delays encountered in transferring regulatory responsibilities to APRA, it was recently decided to examine the legislation more closely. That examination suggests any potentially restrictive provisions are designed to perform normal prudential functions and are not designed to restrict competition per se. This and the fact that the popularity of the entities it regulates has declined markedly in the face of greater responsiveness and product diversity in the housing finance market (it has never been more than a very small part of the market in Queensland anyway), means any impact on competition that may exist is small and decreasing. For these reasons, with the NCC‘s agreement, it is proposed to remove the Act from the review and reform schedule. It would still be the Government‘s intention to repeal the Act when circumstances permit. 1.4.3 Land Act 1994 The 1999 Review of this Act examined two restrictions: prohibiting corporations from holding perpetual leases for grazing or agricultural purposes; and limiting the number of living units that non-freehold land owners may aggregate. As previously advised, following completion of the Review, in 2001 the Government directed further consultation with targeted groups. At the time of this report, the Government has not yet made a decision in response to the Review recommendations. 1.4.4 Trade Measurement Act 1990 A national review was undertaken in two stages (with Queensland as the lead agency): Stage 1 concluded that most restrictions were justified, but recommended further investigation on a restriction on the sale of non-prepacked meat; and Stage 2 involved undertaking a Public Benefit Test (PBT) in relation to the sale of non-prepacked meat. On 28 November 2003, the Standing Committee of Officials on Consumer Affairs (SCOCA): approved the Final PBT Report in relation to the sale of non-prepacked meat and endorsed its recommendations; and recommended the Final Report and its recommendations to the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs (MCCA) for approval and public release. The Final PBT Report recommends that: the definition of meat be reviewed to determine whether it should expressly include seafood and poultry and to clarify when specialised meat products cease to be meat for the purposes of the restriction; Trade Measurement Victoria commence the review within twelve months; and the Trade Measurement Advisory Committee (TMAC) be involved in the review and decision-making process. The Final Report has received Review Committee and TMAC approval and has been noted by the Queensland Cabinet and endorsed by SCOCA for referral to MCCA for Page 27 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council final approval and endorsement out-of-session. It is proposed the Final PBT Report will be publicly released after final approval and endorsement by MCCA. 1.4.5 Trustee Companies Act 1968 A combined review, co-ordinated by New South Wales, is being undertaken in conjunction with the development of new uniform trustee company legislation. A draft Trustee Corporations Bill and NCP Review Report was prepared on the basis that the Commonwealth Government, through the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) would undertake prudential supervision of trustee companies in accordance with a previous agreement between the States and the Commonwealth Government. However, the Commonwealth Government has recently declined to do so. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) is reviewing its position in this context and the State Attorneys are to make further representations on the issue to the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The timing of any legislative changes would be subject to the resolution of these issues through SCAG. The delay in completing review and reform of this legislation is entirely due to the Commonwealth‘s decision, at the very last minute, to abrogate the previous agreement. The situation is further complicated in that a number of jurisdictions have disbanded their previous regulatory structures in anticipation of the agreed outcome and would need to reconstitute Statebased regulation duplicating that provided by APRA. For these reasons, Queensland believes it and other States and Territories should not be penalised by the NCC when it is undertaking its 2004 assessment in relation to this legislation. 1.5 New Legislation Clause 5(5) of the CPA requires all proposals for new primary and subordinate legislation that restricts competition to be accompanied by evidence that the legislation is consistent with the clause 5 guiding principle. For its 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking further information to that provided in jurisdictions’ 2003 reports on their ―gatekeeping‖ arrangements -- in particular, the roles and responsibilities of their gatekeeping mechanism, its powers, reporting obligations and the types of legislation it assesses. In this respect, the NCC is seeking detailed information on whether: all legislation that contains non-trivial restrictions on competition is subject to formal regulatory impact assessment of all legislation; there are published guidelines for conducting regulation impact analysis; impact assessment guidelines specifically embody the CPA clause 5 guiding principle; there is independent body that advises on and monitors compliance; and there are processes in place to ensure that all agencies adhere to gatekeeping requirements? Queensland‘s gatekeeping arrangements, which were outlined in its 2003 progress report as follows, comply fully with the State‘s NCP obligations under Clause 5(5) of the CPA. Under the Queensland Government‘s gatekeeping arrangements, all new (including amending) legislation that restricts competition must be subjected to a public benefit test prior to its consideration by Cabinet. The type and scope of each review is determined in accordance with the Queensland Government‘s Public Benefit Test Guidelines issued by Queensland Treasury, which also monitors compliance. In addition to the NCP gatekeeping requirements for all new primary and subordinate legislation, under the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, any proposed subordinate legislation which is likely to impose appreciable costs on the community or a part of the Page 28 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council community must have a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) prepared before the legislation is made. The Act includes guidelines on what must be included in the RIS. The section of the Act relating to the conduct of RIS is administered by the Business Regulation Review Unit (BRRU) within the Department of State Development, which also provides more detailed guidelines and advice on the conduct of RIS. Queensland has established processes for ensuring rigorous analysis of new legislation that restricts competition and does not support there is a need to establish a separate regulatory impact assessment body to demonstrate compliance with CPA clause 5. Queensland Treasury and BRRU provide specific advice on regulatory matters to Cabinet through established Cabinet processes. As stated in its 2003 progress report, the requirement for a separate independent body is beyond the scope of the CPA and should not form part of the NCC‘s assessment criteria for 2004 or in the future. As part of Queensland‘s gatekeeping arrangements, all Departments are required to consider interjurisdictional consistency (or harmonisation) when assessing regulatory impacts. In 2003, 97 Acts and 303 Regulations (excluding Proclamations and significant appointments) were enacted. As part of Queensland‘s gatekeeping requirements, all draft legislative proposals are examined to ensure that any potential restrictions on competition are identified. If a potential restriction, which imposed an appreciable impact on the community, was identified, a public benefit test and/or a regulatory impact assessment was carried out on the restriction. Restrictions were only retained if it was held that they were necessary to achieve the objects of the legislation and were in the public interest. Attachment 1 lists all legislation passed during 2002 and, where applicable, describes the potential impacts on competition. Table 1.1 summarises the number of new Acts and subordinate legislation which were examined as part of the gatekeeping process during 2003. Table 1.1: New legislation gatekeeping Status Legislation assessed as administrative only; or no restrictions identified; or restriction identified but has no appreciable impact on competition. Restriction(s) identified but RIS* or PBT** not undertaken – restriction assessed to be justified to meet health or social objectives. RIS or PBT undertaken Total Acts 76 Subordinate Legislation 267 2 2*** 19 97 34**** 303 *RIS - Regulatory Impact Statement; ** PBT - Public Benefit Test; *** May not include instances where the subordinate legislation supports principal legislation which was subject to a PBT; **** May include instances where a combined PBT was undertaken of the principal and subordinate legislation. Page 29 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 2. 2.1 COMPETITIVE NEUTRALITY Background Under Clause 3 of the CPA, each jurisdiction is required to consider applying competitive neutrality principles to its significant business activities where it can be demonstrated that the benefits to the community would outweigh the costs. Competitive neutrality means that government businesses should not enjoy any net competitive advantage over their competitors simply as a result of their public sector ownership. Each government is free to determine its own agenda for the implementation of competitive neutrality principles. There have been no significant further developments in the coverage of the application of competitive neutrality principles to State Government business activities. 2.2 2.2.1 Competitive Neutrality Implementation Progress TAFE The implementation of competitive neutrality to Queensland‘s 15 TAFE Institutes has effectively been completed through the application Full Cost Pricing to: all Competitive Purchasing Programs when competing head to head with a private provider; and all corporate and single subscriber Fee-For-Service activities, when competing head to head with a private provider. No complaints have been received from 14 of the Institutes. The Southbank Institute of TAFE has advised that it has received one complaint which is still under consideration but expected to be resolved at the local level. 2.2.2 Forestry The NCC is seeking information on the profitability of DPI Forestry in 2002-03, how profitable is it expected to be over the next three years or more, and if it not expected to meet its cost of capital, why not? The NCC is also querying whether the Government has taken action to implement a higher standard of disclosure of timber prices assumed for valuation purposes and whether DPI Forestry will face local taxes equivalent to those faced by private forest owners? Profitability Details of DPI Forestry trading surplus, profits (stated in accordance with AAS 35) and return on assets for 2002 – 2003 and indicative figures for subsequent 3 years are provided in Table 2.1. Page 30 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Table 2.1: DPI Forestry Profitability Trading Surplus1 Profit from ordinary activities after interest payments and income tax2 Return on Assets (RoA)3 Economic Rate of Return (ERR)4 5 year Average RoA 1. 2. 3. 4. 2002-03 $34.9M $285.3M 26.8% 29.2% 10.8% 2003-04 $29.8M -$184.8M -13.3% -12.2% 6.8% 2004-05 $20.8M $42.5M 4.1% 4.5% 6.6% 2005-06 $24.5M $46.2M 4.3% 4.7% 6.7% Represents the operating surplus before interest, tax and unrealised increment in value of plantation Calculated as revenue from ordinary activities (ex AAS 35) less expense from ordinary activities less borrowing cost expense less tax expense. Calculated as: Profit + borrowing expense Opening asset value Calculated as: Trading surplus + Depreciation + (Creditors*WACC)+ (Closing asset value-Opening asset value) Opening asset value In previous responses on this issue, DPI Forestry highlighted the potential future sensitivity in return on asset figures following a shift to the net present value methodology for forest valuation purposes (in line with accounting standard AAS 35). Much of this volatility has its origins in factors both historic and external to the forestry agency (e.g. changes in resource quality arising from historic management decisions and/or market conditions) thus significantly limiting its suitability as a performance measure in the short term. This volatility is clearly evidenced in RoA and ERR figures provided for 2002–03 and 2003-04. In respect to the issue of DPI Forestry‘s cost of capital, this is reviewed on an annual basis in conjunction with the Queensland Audit Office. As a consequence of this process, a real cost of capital for DPI Forestry in the range of 6 – 7.5% has been established. Although current RoA‘s fall within this range, as previously outlined such figures are heavily influenced by factors both historic and external to the agency. Accordingly DPI Forestry‘s management focus is on enhancing the performance of the business in the context of the business re-investment decision, essentially plantation establishment. DPI Forestry considers that cost of capital is the key driver in this regard, and reviews its major plantation program using IRR and NPV analysis with the cost of capital as ―hurdle rate‖ and discount rate respectively. Such analysis is however complex and imprecise, as it generally requires significant extrapolation and assumption, particularly with respect to future prices and the operational translation of results of tree breeding R&D and their interactions. A 2003 external benchmarking study undertaken of DPI Forestry‘s major exotic pine reestablishment program supported internal analysis indicating that the current investment program is meeting or exceeding cost of capital target. Disclosure of timber prices for valuation purposes DPI Forestry‘s 2002-2003 Yearbook incorporated an analysis of the sensitivity of the net market value of plantations to changes in prices received for plantation products and changes in the weighted average cost of capital (See Table 2.2). Page 31 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Table 2.2: Net Market Value Sensitivity Discount Rate change Price change +1% -1% +5% -5% Effect on Net Market Value -- 2003 ($’000) -143,000 +175,000 +73,000 -73,000 Subject to a review of any stakeholder feedback on these reporting enhancements and audit consultation, consideration will also be given to including in future years reports a statement to the effect that ―DPI Forestry’s long-term commercial contract arrangements are established via competitive processes (for new sales) and incorporate 5 yearly price review provisions. These commercial-in-confidence contract arrangements are underpinned by regular competitive sales of plantation material to maximise market signals. Market signals arising from these competitive sale processes, along with a range of factors such as changes in resource quality, utilisation standards, values of comparable domestic and overseas forest and timber products, end-user market trends and surveys and relativity between values and movements in the CPI, and other published timber indices are incorporated into the aforementioned five yearly price review processes. Contract arrangements also incorporate provisions for a formal dispute resolution process as part of price review arrangements‖. DPI Forestry contends that for reasons previously advised (2003), and in recognition that prices assumed for valuation purposes reflect those actually paid by customers under commercial contract arrangements, that the disclosure of detailed pricing information used for valuation purposes may inadvertently confer commercial benefit to one or more of DPI Forestry customers or competitors. Local Government Rates/Equivalents DPI Forestry recently advised the Local Government Association of Queensland of its intentions to initiate discussions with Queensland Treasury in regard to payment of local government rates on land purchased for plantation establishment. Recently, however, DPI Forestry‘s strategic focus has shifted from land purchase to land rental arrangements, and by entering into such arrangements DPI Forestry will not be advantaged through its current exemption from local government rates. 2.2.3 Public Trust Office In 2003, the Queensland Government reported that the Public Trust Office had implemented actions recommended in the Public Benefit Test, that is: introducing full cost pricing; transparent Community Service Obligation (CSO) funding; and eliminating cross-subsidies. The remaining element of the package of reforms was the establishment of an appropriate capital structure by way of the necessary accounting segregation of the Common Fund. In March 2003, the Queensland Government considered a submission in respect of the reform of the Public Trust Office noting recommended actions which would address the remaining reforms and introduce the accounting segregation of the Common Fund with effect from July 2003. Page 32 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council The accounting segregation of the Common Fund commenced on 1 July 2003 and completes the framework for fully transparent accounting for the activities of the Public Trust Office. The trend towards greater demand for the services of Public Trust Office generally, and in particular the services to clients who have a disability has continued. The structure and systems now firmly established at the Public Trust Office will allow the close monitoring of the continued achievement of competitive neutrality benefits whilst providing a sound mechanism for the delivery of the Queensland Government‘s social justice objectives. 2.3 Complaints The NCC is seeking information on complaints received and complaints resolved during 2003. 2.3.1 Complaints to the Queensland Competition Authority The Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) received one competitive neutrality complaint during 2003. The QCA received a written complaint from Legalco Management Pty Ltd (Legalco) on 2 June 2003 alleging a breach of the principle of competitive neutrality by CITEC CONFIRM (CITEC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of State Revenue (OSR) of the principle of competitive neutrality. Legalco alleged that EPA and OSR were unwilling to provide Legalco with online access to the Environmental Management Register (EMR), Contaminated Land Register (CLR) and the Land Tax Certificates Register (LTC) (collectively called the Registers) while at the same time allowing such access exclusively to CITEC, a declared significant business activity for the purpose of the competitive neutrality provisions of the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 (Act). The QCA reported the results of its investigation in February 2004. It found no evidence that there is a government policy or procedure that restricts access to government information databases in general, or the information databases of OSR and EPA in particular, solely to CITEC. Rather, access is determined by the relevant agencies according to their individual circumstances, with security of access and cost prime considerations in this regard. Accordingly, the Authority concluded: (a) (b) that there has been no breach of the principle of competitive neutrality by CITEC; and had EPA and OSR been subject to the competitive neutrality provisions of the Act, the Authority is of the view that their actions would also not have been in breach of the principle of competitive neutrality. The report of the QCA‘s investigation is available at www.qca.qld.gov.au 2.3.2 Complaints to Queensland Treasury Queensland Treasury received a number of inquiries during 2003, but none have resulted in formal competitive neutrality complaints being lodged. A number of initial Page 33 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council inquiries were referred to the relevant agencies which were resolved following preliminary discussions. Two issues were referred by the Australian Government Competitive Neutrality Complaint Offices – both are being examined but relate to regulatory or legislation review matters, rather than the operations of Queensland Government businesses. 2.3.3 Other Complaints In 2003, Queensland provided information on a complaint lodged by Stabilised Pavements of Australia (SPA) against Main Roads commercial operations unit, RoadTek. An investigation by Ernst & Young found there had been no breach of competitive neutrality principles. Nevertheless, Main Roads management met with SPA in early December 2003 to clarify concerns. Following that meeting, it is expected that there will be no further action from SPA over the issue. The initial complaint was based on a perceived pricing advantage to RoadTek in the current arrangements for purchase of cement. To alleviate this perception, the Department is instigating new purchasing arrangements for cement - a standing offer arrangement available to all potential tenderers bidding for Main Roads‘ open competition work, and a second standing offer arrangement for use by RoadTek in all other Main Roads‘ work. The Department has received legal advice supporting this approach. SPA will be advised when the new arrangements come into effect. Page 34 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 3. 3.1 STRUCTURAL REFORM Background Under Clause 4 of the Competition Principles Agreement, before introducing competition to a sector traditionally supplied by a public monopoly, or privatising a public monopoly, jurisdictions are required to review a range of structural reform matters related to commercial objectives, natural monopoly considerations, regulatory functions, competitive neutrality, community service obligations, price and service regulation and corporate finance matters. Each jurisdiction is free to determine its own agenda for the reform of public monopolies. 3.2 Structural Reform Progress No new structural reform matters emerged during2003. Page 35 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 4. 4.1 PRICES OVERSIGHT Background Clause 2 (Prices Oversight of Government Business Enterprises) of the Competition Principles Agreement requires each State and Territory to consider establishing independent sources of prices oversight where these do not exist. The independent source of prices oversight must have the following characteristics: (a) it should be independent from the government business enterprise whose prices are being assessed; (b) its prime objective should be one of efficient resource allocation, but with regard to any explicitly identified and defined community service obligations imposed on a business enterprise by the government or legislature of the jurisdiction that owns the enterprise; (c) it should apply to all significant government business enterprises that are monopoly, or near monopoly, suppliers of goods or services (or both); (d) it should permit submissions by interested persons; and (e) its pricing recommendations, and the reasons for them, should be published. In fulfilment of this obligation, Queensland established the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) in 1997 with the above characteristics. 4.2 (a) Government Monopoly Business Activities State and local government business activities which are monopolies or near monopolies that have been declared by the Premier and the Treasurer to be Government Monopoly Business Activities; and Private sector water suppliers (including the jointly owned State/local government company SEQWater). In Queensland, prices oversight applies to: (b) In the reporting year, the Premier and the Treasurer declared the bulk water storage and distribution activities of the Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Board (trading as NQWater). The Premier and the Treasurer have previously declared the following activities to be Government Monopoly Business Activities: the bulk water storage, water distribution and retail reticulation and drainage activities of SunWater; the bulk water storage, water delivery and treatment services and supply of water by Gladstone Area Water Board; the bulk water storage and water distribution activities of the Mt. Isa Water Board; and the water and sewerage services provided by the largest eighteen local governments in Queensland (i.e. Brisbane, Gold Coast, Rockhampton, Townsville, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Logan, Caboolture, Cairns, Caloundra, Harvey Bay, Mackay, Maroochy, Noosa, Pine Rivers, Redland, Thuringowa and Bundaberg). Page 36 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 4.3 (a) (b) (c) Pricing Investigations a complaint that the Maroochy Shire Council‘s water and sewerage business, Maroochy Water Services, is monopoly pricing; a company alleging the Brisbane Water‘s charges to industrial customers constitute a monopoly rent and are indicative of cross subsidisation; and a company alleging the prices charged by Townsville Port Authority are unreasonably high when compared with other ports in Australia. Pricing complaints received, or dealt with, in the past year include: Treasury is in the process of investigating the substance of claims (a) and (b). In relation to claims (c), it was found that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a referral and full pricing investigation by the QCA. The Gladstone Area Water Board was referred in 2000 to the QCA by the Premier and the Treasurer for an investigation into its pricing practices. The QCA published its Final Report in September 2002 and the Premier and the Treasurer accepted the Report‘s recommendations. These recommendations are now being implemented. One of the recommendations was for a review of the GAWB‘s prices in 2004. This review has commenced. Related to prices oversight investigations but not part of the formal regime, are investigations undertaken by the QCA pursuant to section 10 (e) of the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997. These investigations are undertaken at the direction of the Premier and the Treasurer and may relate to any matter regarding the implementation of competition policy. The following investigations were completed, or progressed, in this reporting year: (a) in January 2003, the Ministers directed the QCA to identify the general pricing principles which should underpin the treatment of investments made in response to extraordinary circumstances such as drought, with specific reference to the circumstances pertaining to the Gladstone Area Water Board. The QCA is expected to release a draft report in March 2004; and the QCA released its final report ―Burdekin Haughton Water Supply Scheme: assessment of certain pricing matters relating to the Burdekin irrigation area‖ in March 2003. This report deals with issues relating to claims by irrigators that they have made capital contributions to the Scheme and are therefore entitled to concessional pricing. (b) Page 37 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 5. 5.1 THIRD PARTY ACCESS Background Access to the services provided by electricity and gas pipeline infrastructure is governed by the respective uniform national access codes for these industries. Access to services provided by other facilities is governed by either Part 5 of the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 or Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974. 5.2 Services covered by the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 the rail transportation service provided by the use of Queensland Rail‘s track infrastructure; and the coal loading and unloading services provided by the use of the Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal. The services which have been declared under the Act are: (a) (b) 5.3 Recent Activities In the past reporting year the Government did not receive any applications for the declaration of services under the QCA Act. The QCA received, for its approval, a draft access undertaking for the declared services of Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal. The QCA released an Issues Paper in August 2003 and is currently assessing a range of matters. Page 38 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 6. 6.1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT Introduction As outlined in previous reports to the NCC, the Government‘s strategy for applying NCP reforms to Queensland local governments initially focussed on the largest business activities through the application of competitive neutrality reforms to the significant business activities (SBAs) of the 18 largest local governments. This represents over 80% of local government business activity in Queensland. The largest 18 local governments have demonstrated excellent progress in applying competitive neutrality reforms to their SBAs and have subsequently also demonstrated substantial progress in applying competitive neutrality reforms to their smaller business activities. While legislative arrangements only required the largest 18 governments to examine the cost effectiveness of reform, the Government made available $150 million (in 1994/95 dollars) in incentive payments to councils who considered and/or implemented the NCP reforms. To date some $133 million4 in incentive payments have been made to local governments. A further $8.07 in payments have recently been recommended by the Queensland Competition Authority5. Three years ago, the Government re-focussed its attention on NCP reforms in smaller local governments. Through the Business Management Assistance Program (BMAP), smaller to medium sized local governments received direct assistance and training from skilled consultants in implementing the NCP reforms. This program proved highly successful in significantly improving the reform take up of these smaller councils. In summary, the good progress being achieved in NCP reform in Queensland is due to a combination of a number of factors including: the financial incentives available to local governments which implement such reforms under the $150 million Local Government Financial Incentive Package (LGFIP); the benefits being achieved by local governments as a result of undertaking the reforms; and the training and support initiatives provided by the Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP), the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) and the LGAQ, especially through BMAP. The State Government has also put in place a comprehensive legislative framework to support its local government NCP reform program through the Local Government Act (1993) (LGA). This framework was supplemented by amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which removed certain impediments to the corporatisation of local government business activities. Initially only the business activities of the largest 18 local governments were required by legislation to adopt the reforms. Competitive roads business activities of local councils are required to adopt the Code of Competitive 4 5 This figure includes indexation. The QCA is responsible for assessing the progress of Local Governments in implementing the reforms set out in the competition agreements. Page 39 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Conduct and amendments have been recently made to the LGA to also require local governments' building certification activities to adopt the Code. Local governments have commenced or made a binding commitment to the competitive neutrality reform in 664 business activities. Most councils have established competitive neutrality complaint mechanisms for these activities as required under the LGA. 6.2 Competitive Neutrality Attachment 2 contains the summary of all local government businesses currently undertaking competitive neutrality reform. The table indicates the type of reform being taken, their progress with regard to the implementation of full cost pricing and other pertinent details. For the purposes of interpreting Attachment 2, the QCA has given a rating to each council based on how many of these elements are in place. The ratings are: “All” “Most” “Many” “Some” “None” “Not achieving FCP” – – – – – – 100% of the elements of full cost pricing have been implemented 75% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing have been implemented 50% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing have been implemented 25% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing have been implemented 0% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing have been implemented businesses that may have made significant changes to their financial and accounting systems in implementing the reforms, however they are not yet recovering sufficient costs to meet the minimum revenue requirement 6.2.1 Reform Progress Type 1 Businesses Type 1 SBAs are those identified under the LGA that generate expenditure in excess of $31.4 million for combined water and sewerage activities, or $18.8 million in the case of other activities. The LGA requires that such businesses must implement at least full cost pricing (FCP) within the business activity. To date, nine Type 1 SBAs have been identified and all of them have implemented 100% of the elements of FCP (see Attachment 2). Eight of the Type 1 SBAs have been successfully commercialised. Commercialisation requires the council to set in place various competitive neutrality adjustments such as the inclusion of tax equivalence into costs. The business is required to be run as a separate business unit of the council and various accounting separations are required. The remaining council activity has successfully applied full cost pricing to its operation. FCP is a more methodical and complete version of full cost recovery. FCP requires the inclusion of tax equivalence and the generation of a return on capital. However, the application of FCP does not require the activity to develop the same level of managerial autonomy from the council that commercialisation does. All nine Type 1 SBAs have established an appropriate complaints mechanism for hearing competitive neutrality. No competitive neutrality complaints were made against the Type 1 SBAs. Page 40 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Type 2 Businesses Type 2 SBAs are those identified under the LGA that generate expenditure in excess of $9.4 million for water and sewerage activities, or $6.2 million in the case of other activities. To date 22 such activities have been identified6 (see Attachment 2). Progress is as follows: 16 of these SBAs have implemented all the elements of FCP (up from 11), and; 6 of these SBAs have implemented most of the elements of FCP. Nineteen of these SBAs have been commercialised while the remaining three businesses are implementing Full Cost Pricing. All of the existing Type 2 SBAs have instituted a competitive neutrality complaints process. No competitive neutrality complaints have been made against Type 2 businesses to date. Type 3 Businesses Type 3 businesses are those businesses whose annual expenditure exceeds $200,000 and are considered to be in competition with the private sector. The benchmark level of reform for a Type 3 business is the adoption of the Code of Competitive Conduct (the Code). Where councils opt to apply the Code to the business in question, they are bound to abide by the Code pursuant to s764 of the LGA. Furthermore, the LGA requires any competitive roads businesses of councils to apply the Code. As stated earlier amendments are currently being considered to ensure building certification businesses are also subject to the code. As of 1 July 2003, there were 203 Type 3 businesses applying the Code. One business advised it had commercialised. Of these 203 Type 3 businesses applying the code: 100 have provided evidence that all elements of FCP were being applied to the business (up from 69); 22 indicated that they were applying most of the elements of FCP to the business; 30 indicated that they were applying many of the elements of FCP to the business; 7 indicated that they were applying some of the elements of FCP to the business; 35 were found to not meet the requirements of full cost recovery; 9 did not provide sufficient information to make a determination regarding their current progress with regard to the implementation of the various elements of full cost pricing or full cost recovery. 6 This figure has increased by 1 since last year with the inclusion of Cairns Works. Page 41 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Non Type 3 Businesses Non-Type 3 businesses are those businesses that generate greater than $200,000 in expenditure each year and are not considered to be in direct competition with the private sector. These businesses are not required to apply any of the NCP reforms, however the Queensland Government encourages them to do so through the LGFIP. To the 1st of July 2003 there were 430 non-Type 3 businesses that had applied the Code. Of these 430 businesses: 255 provided evidence that they had implemented all of the elements of full cost pricing (up from 90); 56 indicated that they had implemented most of the elements of full cost pricing; 49 indicated that they had implemented many of the elements of full cost pricing; 22 indicated that they had implemented some of the elements of full cost pricing; 25 were found to not yet be meeting the requirement of full cost recovery; 23 did not provide sufficient information to make an effective assessment regarding their implementation of full cost pricing or full cost recovery; 6.3 Competitive Neutrality Complaint Process An amendment to the LGA in December 1997 created the framework for the complaint and accreditation processes for local government business activities to which competitive neutrality reforms are applied. This was modelled on the processes applying at the State Government level, including the role of the QCA. In essence, once a competitive neutrality reform has been applied to any local government business activity, the local government must establish a process to deal with complaints about breaches of competitive neutrality. Details of the processes required were outlined in Queensland‘s 1999 annual report to the NCC. Of the 664 businesses subjected or committed to competitive neutrality reform to date: 637 local government business activities are subject to a complaint processes (up from 561); and no evidence has been provided of a valid complaints process for the remaining business activities (28). This statistic is sharply down from last years report citing 99 businesses without an appropriate complaints process. 6.4 Community Service Obligations Where Local Government Businesses commit to reform, the LGA and the Local Government Finance Standard require them to identify, cost and fund any Community Service Obligations (CSO) associated with the running of their business activities. Significant Business Activities In relation to the Significant Business Activities (SBA), those designated as Type 1 or Type 2 businesses, all businesses have put in place appropriate policies to identify, cost and fund CSOs. Page 42 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Type 3 In relation to the treatment of CSOs within the competitive Type 3 businesses: 188 have appropriate policies in place to identify, cost and fund CSOs; 14 have identified CSOs that are yet to be appropriately substantiated; 2 have not put in place an appropriate policy to identify, cost and fund CSOs. Non-Type 3 In relation to the treatment of CSOs within the non-competitive Non-Type 3 businesses: 389 have appropriate policies in place to identify, cost and fund CSOs; 21 have identified CSOs that are yet to be appropriately substantiated; 1 has identified and costed a CSO yet is not receiving funding from council for the provision of the CSO; 2 have identified CSOs, yet have not yet costed or funded them; 16 have not put in place an appropriate policy to identify, cost and fund CSOs. Page 43 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Part 2 – Conduct Code Agreement 7. 7.1 TRADE PRACTICES Background Section 51(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 provides for conduct, which would normally be an offence under the restrictive trade practice provisions of the Act, to be permitted if it is specifically authorised under Commonwealth, State and Territory Acts. Clause 2(1) of the Conduct Code obliges jurisdictions to advise the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in writing of legislation which relies on section 51(1) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 within 30 days of the legislation being enacted. Queensland is required to identify new legislation or provisions in legislation which rely on section 51(1) and to confirm the ACCC has been notified accordingly. 7.2 Trade Practices Exemptions Queensland has not passed any legislation relying on the section 51(1) exemption during 2003. Page 44 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Part 3 – Agreement to implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms 8. ELECTRICITY REFORMS The NCC has indicated it will consider the coordinated approach taken by governments in establishing a fully competitive National Electricity Market (NEM) as part of its 2004 assessment. In particular, the NCC is seeking information from all NEM governments on their progress in meeting commitments in relation to: derogations from the National Electricity Code; and maximising the potential for competition in the retail market. 8.1 Code derogations For its 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking information on existing derogations, in particular, details of all existing derogations, the timetable for their expiration and explanation of the continued need for any ongoing derogations. 8.1.1 Forward Looking Loss Factors In December 2002, Queensland obtained an extension of an existing derogation from the Code relating to the calculation of intra-regional loss factors. This derogation allowed Queensland to calculate loss factors on a forward looking basis, based on load and generation data predicted for the next financial year. At the time, the Code required that loss factors be calculated using load and generation data from the previous financial year. On 3 October 2002, the ACCC authorised the application of loss factors across the NEM in a forward looking manner similar to that undertaken by Queensland, with intended implementation from 1 January 2004. Without an extension to the derogation, Queensland would have been required to revert to the use of backward looking loss factors for a limited time at considerable expense. The ACCC therefore authorised an extension of Queensland‘s derogation until the earliest of either the implementation of NEM-wide forward looking loss factors, or 31 December 2004. The application of forward looking loss factors across the NEM commenced on 1 January 2004 and accordingly, the Queensland derogation has now ceased to apply. 8.1.2 Technical Derogations In December 2002, Queensland obtained an extension of existing derogations from the Code relating to the technical standards under Chapter 5. Page 45 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council This extension was obtained on the basis of a review of the Code‘s technical standards (Review) being undertaken by NECA, originally scheduled for completion in mid-2003. In the absence of an extension of the derogations, there was the risk that the Queensland network operators (Powerlink, Energex and Ergon Energy) would be unable to comply with the existing technical requirements of the Code. To obviate this risk, the network operators would need to undertake significant system upgrades which, depending on the outcome of the Review, may have proven to be superfluous. There was a demonstrable public benefit in avoiding this outcome and no evidence the derogations had in any material way detracted from the effective operation of an efficient and interconnected national market. This had been borne out by the widespread acceptance of the need for the Review itself and the existence of similar technical derogations in all other NEM jurisdictions. The ACCC therefore authorised an extension of Queensland‘s derogation until the earlier of 31 December 2004 or 12 months from the beginning of the day the revised technical standards were implemented through the Code. On 26 February 2003, the ACCC authorised changes to the Code to establish a structured hierarchy of system, access, performance and plant standards for connecting to the network. These rules replaced the technical standards which previously applied. From 16 November 2003, the Code incorporates two clear and consolidated sets of standards. Accordingly, the Queensland derogations from Chapter 5 will cease to apply from 16 November 2004. 8.2 Retail market competition In its 2003 assessment, the NCC recommended a 25 percent suspension of Queensland’s competition payments on the basis Queensland agreed to consider the early introduction of contestability for customers consuming between 100-200 megawatt hours per year (tranche 4A) and to undertake a further review of full retail contestability. The NCC has indicated an expectation that these matters will be settled prior to the 2004 assessment and is seeking information on progress accordingly. The NCC is also seeking information on the role and effect of the Benchmark Pricing Agreements (particularly in relation to greater retail contestability in the electricity market) and on the future funding and delivery of community service obligations and the role and method of establishment of regulated retail tariffs. 8.2.1 Full Retail Contestability Queensland has consistently supported and introduced reforms which promote and facilitate competition, for the purposes of encouraging the economic development of this State. Within this overall framework of support for the introduction of competitive reforms, Queensland has always sought to provide a sound foundation for reforms. In particular, it is the policy of the Queensland Government to undertake cost-benefit analysis (CBA) on proposed reforms, including prior to the introduction of retail contestability. Page 46 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Queensland‘s approach is consistent with clause 1.3 of the Competition Principles Agreement (Competition Agreement) which states that where the Competition Agreement calls ―for the benefits of a particular policy or course of action to be balanced against the costs of the policy or course of action‖, equity considerations including CSOs, government policies and the interests of consumers are to be taken into account. Other Australian Governments have similarly adopted this approach to the reform of certain sectors and industries. In many cases, Governments have chosen to defer reforms on the basis that the reforms would incur net dis-benefits. Retail contestability in Queensland has been progressively introduced to customers in tranches. Of the approximately 8,500 total eligible contestable customers, over 3,100 (or 37%) have switched to the market. Tranche 1 2 3 (>4GWh) (>0.4GWh) (>200MWh) Total Eligible Customers (No.) 88 518 7,837 8,443 Date of Contestability March 1998 October 1998 July 1999 As the NCC would be aware, Queensland has chosen to defer the introduction of retail competition for domestic and small business customers (full retail competition or ‗FRC‘) on the basis of a CBA undertaken in late 2001 which clearly demonstrated that the benefits of its introduction would be far outweighed by its costs. The CBA‘s conclusions and Queensland‘s deferral of FRC have been discussed at some length with the NCC in recent years. While Queensland has deferred FRC, it has ensured that this policy is compatible with the efficient operation of the wholesale market and the delivery of competitively priced and secure electricity supply to Queensland customers. We note the extensive discussions that have occurred between Queensland and the NCC with respect to the methodology applied in carrying out the CBA and the support provided by the Premiers of the other NEM jurisdictions with respect to Queensland‘s interpretation of its reform requirements. Further to these discussions, Queensland advises that: The Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE) in its ―Report to the Council of Australian Governments on the Reform of Energy Markets‖ (Report) (dated 11 December 2003) has recommended that: – the MCE supports the further introduction of retail competition across the national energy market, noting that its implementation must be guided by local circumstances, particularly the need to protect consumers. in all jurisdictions where FRC is operating, retail price caps will be aligned to costs, and the need for the caps will be reviewed periodically. – This Report reflects the agreed position of the Commonwealth, all States and Territories on these issues and lends further support to Queensland‘s interpretation Page 47 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council of its reform requirements under the Competition Agreements – crucially, the ability to consider and be guided by costs and customer impacts when assessing and implementing reform policy. As has previously been publicly stated, Queensland will again this year undertake an examination of the costs and benefits of the introduction of FRC. It is intended that the CBA and any ultimate decision regarding the further extension of retail competition in Queensland will be guided by consideration of a range of viable retail and network pricing frameworks. The Queensland Government requests a meeting with the Council to discuss the proposed Terms of Reference for the CBA on FRC and to brief the NCC on the methodology intended to apply in the course of Queensland‘s examination of this issue. 8.2.2 Tranche 4A In February 2004, the Queensland Government announced the extension of retail competition to over 7,000 small business customers with energy consumption between 100MWh and 200MWh per annum from 1 July 2004 (referred to as tranche 4a or ‗T4a‘). The number of customers in this tranche is growing at a rate of 3% per annum in Ergon Energy‘s supply area and 5% per annum in ENERGEX‘s supply area. The decision to introduce T4a and the framework to support its implementation was based on a CBA which demonstrated that the introduction of T4a is a marginal economic decision. The outcomes are estimated as follows: Costs of Introducing Retail Competition to T4a Benefits of Introducing Retail Competition to T4a Benefit Cost Ratio Note: Costs and Benefits are estimated over a five-year period. $4.53M $4.33M 0.95 In particular: the costs of introducing T4a are estimated at $4.53 million – primarily covering systems costs incurred by the businesses and meter purchase costs incurred by customers entering the contestable market. the benefits are estimated at $4.33 million – primarily represented by the competition induced benefits reflected in lower wholesale energy prices as retailers compete to supply contestable customers with lower priced electricity. Although T4a is a marginal proposition with the costs slightly outweighing the benefits, Queensland may support its introduction in light of the relatively small absolute quantum of costs involved, and the possibility of non-quantifiable benefits (customer choice and improved product and service offerings) becoming available. Additionally, the costs of T4a have sought to be minimised through the adoption of a transfer and trading framework similar to that applying to those Queensland customers currently eligible for contestable supply (i.e. those consuming more than 200 MWhs per annum). This reduces the costs associated with implementing new protocols and Page 48 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council procedures as well as minimizing the system changes required by market participants, assisting in a timely introduction. Queensland believes that the introduction of T4a will provide the opportunity for a considerable number of business customers to achieve price savings and represents a significant enlargement of the retail market in Queensland - with almost 50% of Queensland‘s load being eligible for contestability. A commencement date for T4a of 1 July 2004 has been recommended to allow adequate time for the development of cost reflective network prices, implementation of systems changes by participating businesses, regulatory amendments and a public awareness campaign. 8.2.3 Community Service Obligations The NCC has sought information under its assessment framework on the delivery and funding of electricity Community Service Obligations (CSOs) and the role and method of establishment of regulated retail tariffs. In Queensland, the CSO obligation arises because the Government has elected to provide a system of regulated uniform tariffs (UT) for non-contestable customers (referred to as ‗franchise customers‘). The two host retailers, Ergon Energy and ENERGEX, are responsible for purchasing electricity from the wholesale market to service and supply franchise customers. The UT arrangements provide for customers in the same customer class (e.g. domestic, business, industrial, etc) to pay the same per unit charge regardless of the customer‘s location. Queensland‘s geographically dispersed population and consequently, supply network, has meant that historically, UT revenue has not been sufficient to cover the costs of supplying many customers, particularly those in regional and remote areas of the State. For example, it is estimated that price deregulation and removal of Government subsidies would result in the average domestic household‘s bill in Coastal Queensland increasing on an annual basis from $771 to up to $900 (17% increase) and in the remoter area of North and Far North Queensland, from $825 to up to $2045 (148% increase). These and similar outcomes result in a net CSO payment from the Government to the franchise retailers to overcome the shortfall in revenue associated with franchise customer supply. The CSO is calculated as the difference between the revenue received from franchise customers and the retailer‘s costs associated with supplying electricity to franchise customers. The Queensland Government receives from the retailers the revenue received from the franchise customers and in turn pays each retailer the costs of supplying franchise customers. The costs associated with supplying franchise customers include: energy purchase costs; network costs (transmission and distribution); ancillary service costs; National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMMCO) pool fees; Page 49 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council the costs of renewable energy certificates; and a retail margin. The UT can be considered as a ―bundled‖ price to cover all these cost elements. With the exception of energy purchase costs, these cost elements are considered ―pass through costs‖ as they are set by agreed mechanisms or by independent bodies such as the Queensland Competition Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The arrangement for the purchase of energy is discussed in more detail below. The UT is reviewed periodically by the Queensland Government and in recent years has been adjusted annually to reflect CPI. 8.2.4 Energy Procurement The NCC has sought specific comment under its assessment framework on the role and effect of the electricity Benchmark Pricing Agreement (BPA), particularly in relation to greater retail contestability in the electricity market. Energy procurement arrangements (EPAs) such as the BPA, are entered into as a formal arrangement to ensure that Ergon Energy and ENERGEX purchase wholesale electricity to supply the franchise customer load on a commercial and efficient basis. Queensland is currently in the process of introducing a new EPA referred to as Long Term Energy Procurement (LEP). As with all prior EPAs, the current arrangement sits outside the wholesale electricity market and is competitively neutral in that the retailer is permitted to contract with generators, irrespective of whether they are private or Government-owned. The EPA ensures that the actual purchasing and hedging of energy remains the sole responsibility of the retailers – the Government in no way participates or interferes in this function. As part of the LEP, the Government benchmarks contracts purchased by Ergon Energy and ENERGEX against a range of publicly available and retailer-specific data to ensure the retailers‘ contracts are efficiently priced. The EPA also involves the transfer of risk to the retailers for exposure to the wholesale pool, thereby placing incentives on the retailers to actively manage pool price outcomes. The LEP requires the retailers to enter the financial market and secure contracts for risk mitigation purposes (or face potential losses from remaining unhedged). The EPA therefore supports the development of wholesale contract market mechanisms as it requires the retailer to bid for financial contracts and encourages generators to offer contracts, reinforcing and enhancing the underlying liquidity in the market. As stated above, the arrangement is competitively neutral in that the retailer is able to choose its preferred counter-party, irrespective of whether that counter-party is Government or privately owned. Since the NEM commenced in 1998, Queensland has seen investment in more than 2,500 megawatts (MW) of generation capacity, equal to more than $3 billion of the $5 billion invested in electricity generation NEM-wide. Of this, around 70% has been undertaken by private sector proponents, including: Millmerran Power Project - $1.5 billion. Callide C (50% of $887 million) – approximately $443 million. Page 50 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Tarong North (50% of $652 million) - $326 million. Oakey - $150 million. Roma - $31 million. This corresponds to significant levels of investment in generation by the private sector and is not representative of a market that creates barriers to new investment and entry as suggested by commentators such as the Energy Market Review Panel (the Parer Review) to which the NCC has referred in its assessment framework. Indeed, the EPAs and their impact on wholesale and financial market outcomes were misunderstood by the Parer Review which called for their abolishment on the grounds that, similar to the Electricity Tariff Equalisation Fund (ETEF) in NSW, it suppressed market signals and reduced contract market availability. Queensland does not consider the comparisons made between the BPA and ETEF to be justifiable. In particular: unlike the ETEF, the LEP sits outside the wholesale market. It is a contract between supplier and major customer (the Government). The LEP does not influence the way in which retailers source hedge cover or provide any disincentive for generators to offer cover to the market; the EPA requires the retailer to enter the financial market and secure contracts for risk mitigation purposes (or face potential losses from remaining unhedged). Under the EPA, if a retailer chooses to be exposed to the pool rather than seek hedge cover, that retailer faces the financial risk of that decision. The EPA therefore supports the development of wholesale contract market mechanisms as it requires the retailer to bid for financial contracts and encourages generators to offer contracts, reinforcing and enhancing the underlying liquidity in the market, rather then reducing it. In contrast, the ETEF acts as a regulatory hedge (similar to vesting contracts) where the NSW Government requires mandatory participation by State owned retailers and generators (excluding participation by non-NSW generation entities) and thus displaces possible contracting of private market participants and reduces the liquidity of the financial contracts market; and further, under ETEF, both NSW-owned retailers and generators bear the risk that the imposed/regulated strike price is not achieved, whereas under the EPA the risk of the negotiated strike not being achieved lies with the retailers solely (thus encouraging competitively priced hedging activity). The EPA and ETEF have been established for different purposes, each delivers significantly different market impacts. The LEP and the previous BPAs mimic market outcomes that would occur in a fully deregulated retail market. Queensland extends an invitation to the NCC to be briefed on the LEP. Page 51 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 9. GAS REFORMS State and Territory governments’ gas commitments under NCP arise from the Agreement to Implement the National Competition Policy and Related Reforms, the Competition Principles Agreement (CPA) and other agreements on related reforms for the gas sector (gas agreements). For its 2004 assessment of gas reform progress, the NCC is seeking information on a few outstanding issues in relation to: legislation review and reform; full retail contestability (FRC); and implementation of gas quality standards. 9.1 9.1.1 Legislation review and reform Submerged lands legislation The NCC is seeking advice on progress with amendments to Queensland submerged lands legislation to reflect the changes to the Commonwealth legislation. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 (Cth) is the principal legislation used to administer petroleum industry activities in Commonwealth offshore waters. The Commonwealth is in the process of rewriting the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 which will include changing the name to the Offshore Petroleum Act. At this stage, the Bill should be tabled in Federal Parliament during the Winter 2004 sittings. The State will undertake to introduce mirror legislation subsequent to the enactment of the Commonwealth Act. The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Amendment Act 2003 (Cth) received Royal Assent in December 2003. The Act establishes the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA) which will regulate safety in Commonwealth waters and State and Northern Territory coastal waters. NOPSA will commence operation on 1 January 2005. In 2004, the State will amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1982 to confer powers and functions on NOPSA. The amending legislation is also required in advance of commencement of the main provisions of the rewritten Commonwealth Act to ensure that cross-references to State laws remain valid. Minor consequential amendments may be required also to the Gas Supply Act 2003 as a result of changes to definitions and titles in the Commonwealth Act. It is understood that these minor changes will be coordinated by the National Code Registrar in liaison with the Commonwealth Government and Queensland is awaiting further advice in this regard. 9.1.2 On-shore acreage management legislation For 2004, the NCC is seeking on progress with reviewing and reforming Queensland’s acreage management legislation. The Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill underwent an extensive review during 2003 and is currently being finalised. This review resulted in the adoption of a tender process to apply to the future grant of all onshore exploration acreage in Page 52 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Queensland. The integrity of the tender process is to be enhanced requiring strict compliance with the work program submitted in response to the tender. The size of production tenures is to be increased but the criteria for the grant have been changed to ensure that only the area of identified reserves are included in the area. This will ensure that no excess acreage with the potential for additional discoveries is present in a production tenure. This change is consistent with the intent of the Upstream Industry Working Group's reforms in relation to acreage management. At this stage, it is intended to seek Cabinet‘s authority to introduce the Bill to Parliament and have it introduced in May 2004. 9.2 Full retail contestability In its 2003 NCP assessment, the NCC noted Queensland’s intention to delay FRC in gas and seek agreement to this delay by all other jurisdictions as required by the 1997 Intergovernmental Agreement on Gas. For 2004, the NCC is seeking information on the responses from other jurisdictions and advice on Queensland’s final decision in regards to full retail contestability. The Queensland Government engaged independent consultants, McLennan Magasanik Associates Pty Ltd, to conduct a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) on the introduction of FRC in the Queensland reticulated gas market. This analysis concluded that the costs of introducing Gas FRC to the Queensland reticulated gas market would significantly outweigh the benefits, with the estimated marketing and system costs of $115M far exceeding the estimated efficiency benefits of just $31 million. The study was released for public consultation and no material issues were raised in relation to the report or its findings. A copy of the CBA Report was provided to the NCC as part of the 2003 assessment. On 10 October 2003, the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and Minister with responsibility for Energy, the Honourable Paul Lucas MP, wrote to all relevant jurisdictions seeking their approval, in accordance with the Natural Gas Pipelines Access Agreement 1998, for amendments to the State‘s access legislation. As noted in Minister Lucas‘ letter, the timing of this request for approval was a result of the State wishing to conclude a rigorous CBA before determining the State‘s position, rather than prejudge the outcomes of that assessment. Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have advised that they accept Queensland‘s final decision not to introduce with full retail contestability, with that decision open to review in 2007. New South Wales had not responded as at 8 April 2004. However, the Commonwealth has advised that it does not endorse Queensland not progressing the introduction of FRC. In this letter, the Commonwealth Minister, the Honourable Ian MacFarlane MP, acknowledges that other jurisdictions have used various methods to continue to maintain their franchised load arrangements and regulate prices to small consumers, while still introducing FRC. Queensland continues to correspond with Minister MacFarlane, urging a reconsideration of the Commonwealth‘s position. The Queensland Government is strongly supportive of competition reforms where public benefits can be demonstrated and this is reflected in Queensland‘s support of the Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE) decision of 11 December 2003, to undertake further reforms across the energy markets. Page 53 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council It should be noted that in its decision, the MCE indicated its understanding of the necessity to consider local circumstances and particularly to ensure customer protection, clearly stating: ―The MCE supports the further introduction of retail competition across the national energy market, noting that its implementation must be guided by local circumstances, particularly the need to protect consumers.‖ Queensland agrees with the MCE that it is important to place FRC and its importance, within the context of each jurisdiction. For example, an average domestic customer in Queensland uses approximately 13 Gigajoules of gas per annum, whereas in Victoria an average domestic customer uses approximately 65 Gigajoules per annum. In Queensland, there are approximately 150,000 gas customers who use less than 100 Terajoules per annum. In New South Wales, there are approximately 1,000,000 equivalent gas customers. The small market size and low volume usage of these Queensland customers make FRC a great deal less viable than in other jurisdictions. The net estimated cost of $84 million represents a cost per customer of $560.00. Plainly there is not a benefit for Queensland‘s small gas market of very low volume users. For these customers FRC would be an ongoing impost. Queensland‘s decision not to implement gas FRC is entirely consistent with the Competition Principles Agreement. Queensland has considered the costs and benefits and taken the interests of consumers into account when determining the appropriateness of FRC for the Queensland gas market. The Queensland Government has supported gas market competition with policy initiatives such as the Queensland 13% Gas Scheme which is designed to develop new gas sources and gas infrastructure, as well as reduce the growth in greenhouse emissions. Outcomes of Queensland 13% Gas Scheme initiatives already include the State‘s growing coal seam gas industry which will supply around 30 percent of Queensland‘s gas in 2004 and is providing field on field competition together with the Townsville Power Station and Gas Delivery Project which is facilitating a new gas pipeline from Moranbah to Townsville. Queensland has a vibrant gas market growing at around 4.3 percent per annum and 90 percent of that market is contestable. In recognition of Queensland‘s gas market growth potential and changing circumstances, the Queensland Government has previously committed to re-examining the costs and benefits of FRC for the remaining 10 percent of the gas market in 2007. 9.3 Gas quality standards The NCC is seeking advice on progress made in implementing a national gas quality standard being developed by the Australian gas industry, including details on how the standard is to be implemented and a timetable for full implementation. The Australian Standard AS4564-2003‖Specification for General Purpose Natural Gas‖ was implemented by regulation in Queensland on 1 October 2003. Some exemptions under Section 1.1.2 of that Specification have been agreed to, but will cease when Queensland natural gas is supplied to interstate markets. Page 54 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10. WATER REFORMS 10.1 Rural Water Pricing For the 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking information on rural water pricing in relation to the following: full cost recovery; asset valuation; dividends; natural resource management costs; cross subsidies; community service obligations; licence enforcement and cost recovery; and consumption based charging. 10.1.1 Cost Recovery In its 2004 assessment framework, the NCC refers to the five-year price paths established in October 2000 aimed at ensuring that most of Queensland’s 27 government-owned irrigation schemes managed by SunWater achieve full cost recovery by 2005-06. The framework also refers to the Queensland Government’s request to SunWater to reduce its costs by 15 per cent by 2004. For the 2004 NCP assessment, the NCC is looking for a report on improvements in cost recovery achieved via the rural price paths and SunWater’s cost reduction measures. In doing so, Queensland should advise which schemes will achieve full cost recovery by the end of the price path and which will not. For the schemes that will not achieve full cost recovery via the 2000 price path, Queensland should provide timeframes for full cost recovery (where full cost recovery is achievable). Queensland should also report on its progress with the development of new prices to apply from 2005. Rural water price paths have been developed to allow the phased implementation of water price increases to comply with full cost recovery requirements (lower bound). Most SunWater rural water supply schemes are either at, or will reach, lower bound cost recovery by 2004/05. To reflect this phased approach, water supply schemes have been categorised as: Category 1 - Projects that will reach cost recover by 2001; Category 2(a) - Projects that will reach cost recovery by 2004; Category 2(b) - Projects that will reach cost recovery by 2006-07; and Category 3 - Projects that will require ongoing Government support beyond 2004. Note: A small number of projects have been categorised as Category 2(b) and given a price path until 2005/2006 or 2006/2007 to achieve cost recovery. These projects are either projects which would otherwise have been classified as Category 3 or are areas Page 55 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council where the price paths are sympathetic to the impacts of dairy industry deregulation and the downturn in sugar prices in affected schemes. In 2000/01, approximately 53% of nominal allocation in Queensland was at or above lower bound. There are six such Category 1 water supply schemes and four segments of other schemes with Category 1 price paths. Category 2 schemes - which will reach at least lower bound by 2004-05, 2005-06 or 2006-07 - represented 41% of nominal allocation in SunWater schemes in 2000-01. There are eleven Category 2 schemes and seven segments of other schemes with Category 2 price paths. Several Category 3 schemes are on price paths to about 50% of lower bound by 2004-05 - transparent CSO payments apply. They are Dawson Channel, Central Lockyer and Mortonvale Pipeline, Lower Lockyer, Pie Creek, Three Moon Creek, and Maranoa which represent approximately 6% of nominal allocations. Price paths for Callide and Eden Bann Weir schemes remain outstanding. The hydrological nature of the Callide scheme is very difficult to model and until this modelling is completed it is not possible to prepare a price path. Hydrological modelling is essential to gain an accurate understanding of allocations in the system, which is necessary to correctly apportion costs to users. This matter will be addressed as part of future SunWater rural water pricing arrangements. Eden Bann Weir price path was to be finalised in 2003; however, Fitzroy ROP (implemented January 2004) has only recently converted the 3096 ML of entitlements to water allocations. Users will pay for meters to be installed in 2004-05 and future rural water pricing arrangements will apply from 2005-06. Timeframes for outstanding schemes cannot be determined until the end of the current consultation on SunWater pricing. A decision will be made post 2004. In summary, approximately 94% of SunWater's nominal allocations of rural water are at, exceed or on paths to reach minimum financial viability (lower bound). Thus, twentyeight of the thirty-four segments, with individual price paths, comply with full cost recovery requirements. Rural water price paths were based on efficient costs as assessed by independent consultants, which required SunWater to achieve a 15% cost saving over 4 years. The 2002-03 SunWater Annual Report declares that overall costs in irrigation schemes were contained to within 2% of the best practice benchmarks - 2% better than the 2001-02 performance and 13% better than at corporatisation in 2000-01. Queensland released a discussion paper on future SunWater rural water pricing arrangements, in November 2003. Consultation on the paper will continue through to August 2004 to allow any decisions that may flow from the National Water Initiative to be taken into account when making policy decisions. Page 56 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10.1.2 Asset Valuation The NCC is seeking information on whether water businesses are applying appropriate asset valuation methods and earning a non-negative real rate of return on the writtendown replacement cost of their assets? The price paths do not use asset valuations (except in the calculation of asset renewals) or rates of return because only benchmarked lower bound costs were calculated. Pricing in schemes above lower bound were kept constant in real terms. Queensland endorses depreciated optimised replacement cost (DORC) methods, currently favoured over optimised deprival value (ODV). In April 2003, the Queensland Competition Authority determined that a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of 8.27% was the maximum non-monopoly rate of return chargeable to commercial customers in the Burdekin Haughton water supply scheme. Asset valuation and return on assets are policy issues which will be considered by Government as part of the determination of the next rural water price paths. 10.1.3 Dividends The NCC is seeking information on whether dividend payment policies and any dividend distributions by water and wastewater businesses reflect commercial reality and simulate a competitive market outcome? Section 159 of the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 outlines the process and timing for SunWater (as well as other government owned corporations) to consult with the shareholding Ministers in the recommendation of dividends. As a result, the SunWater Board consults with the shareholding Ministers each year before making a recommendation on the payment of a dividend. Once a dividend recommendation is made, it is negotiated between SunWater and the relevant shareholding Ministers' Departments. As a part of recommending an appropriate dividend, the SunWater Board considers the group after-tax profit position (excluding any unrealised impacts from revaluation of non-current assets), consolidated group year-end cash position, projected cashflows (including capital investment and long term infrastructure asset replacement and refurbishment) and prudent working capital requirements. In recent years, shareholding Ministers have agreed that a range of items be removed from the Net Profit After Tax upon which SunWater calculates its dividends. These items include the backlog of maintenance on infrastructure assets (transitional issue), unspent renewals annuity and unspent CSO funding for dam safety and resource management. For the 2002-03 financial year, SunWater paid a dividend of $3.58 million. The shareholding Ministers have agreed with the SunWater board that a significant portion of this dividend is to be reinvested by SunWater into community projects throughout regional Queensland which will enhance water management and the health of rivers. For example, some of the 2002-03 dividend will be applied to the Claire Weir project to construct a new fishway on the Burdekin River. Page 57 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10.1.4 Natural Resource Management Costs The NCC is seeking information on whether the costs of natural resource management requirements imposed on and incurred by water businesses are transparently passed on through prices charged to water users? At the time of the 2001 assessment, Queensland applied an annual volumetric charge for some water harvesting licences, which was capped at 500 megalitres. Queensland did not, however, provide detailed information on the extent of cost recovery and the application of consumption-based pricing principles for rural water licence charges because charges were then under review. In the 2001 assessment, the NCC considered that the capped charge was unlikely to provide sufficient incentive for efficient water use by those using more than 500 megalitres. For the 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking information on the rural water charges levied by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. The information should show how the charges appropriately reflect the costs of processing and administering (including enforcing) the various activities, and whether the charges offer consumption-based incentives consistent with efficient water use. Unsupplemented water charges were in the past paid by only some categories of users – mostly water harvesting licences in supplemented areas. In 2003 charges were replaced with an interim water harvesting charge of $3/ML and $50 annual water licence fees. The water harvesting charge applies to all water harvesters historically charged and, significantly, the 500 ML charging cap was removed. The annual water licence fee applies to all unsupplemented licence holders. In 2004, interim water harvesting charges and water licence fees will be reviewed as part of the Review of the Value of Water being coordinated by Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. This review involves external consultancies to investigate the scarcity value of water, externalities, and water resource management costs - including licensing, monitoring and enforcement costs. The review will also inform future SunWater rural water pricing arrangements through determining what proportion of these costs should be met by the various types of users, including SunWater customers. 10.1.5 Cross Subsidies The NCC is seeking information on whether cross-subsidies that are not consistent with efficient service provision have been eliminated or, at a minimum, is the objective and quantum of remaining cross-subsidies transparently reported? SunWater price paths separate channel and river segments within individual schemes, based on the different cost of service delivery, which removes inefficient crosssubsidies. Benchmarked efficient costs were used to set price paths, ensuring that prices reflect the cost of running individual schemes. Overhead costs are apportioned to schemes based on set methodologies to ensure consistency between schemes and to avoid cross-subsidisation. Page 58 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10.1.6 CSO payments Under Queensland’s 2000 price path, annual subsidy payments to Sunwater’s rural irrigation schemes were to be reduced by $7 million over five years (leaving an annual subsidy of about $1.5 million after 2006). Queensland indicated that SunWater would advise the value of the annual subsidy to each scheme in its annual reports. For the 2004 assessment, the NCC is looking for Queensland to show that CSOs provided to SunWater for delivering services at a price below efficient cost are transparent. Queensland should also show that these subsidies are reducing over time, as envisaged by the 2001 price path. CSO payments are publicly reported in SunWater Annual Reports and will reduce over the price paths based on a model of benchmarked efficient costs rather than actual costs. Efficient Lower Bound Cos ts The CSO paid to SunWater in 2002/03 was $8.2M, a reduction from $9.4M in 2001/02 and $11.6M in 2000/01. In 2002/03, CSO payments to SunWater for each water supply scheme were: Water Supply Scheme Barker Barambah Bowen Broken Rivers Boyne River and Tarong Bundaberg Burdekin Haughton Callide Valley Central Lockyer Valley Chinchilla Weir Cunnamulla Dawson Valley Eton Julius Dam Logan River Lower Fitzroy CSO ($) 57,368 14,068 130,704 2,719,125 0 256,878 529,912 11,520 0 880,957 496,394 0 163,150 0 Water Supply Scheme Lower Lockyer Valley Macintyre Brook Maranoa River Mareeba Dimbulah Mary River Nogoa Mackenzie Pioneer River Proserpine River St George Three Moon Creek Upper Burnett Upper Condamine Warrill Valley Total CSO ($) 498,752 116,789 16,045 649,716 362,139 0 379,257 0 243,666 194,873 69,513 175,241 212,880 8,178,947 10.1.7 Licence Enforcement and Cost Recovery The NCC is seeking information on whether there is a robust assessment of the cost of processing and enforcing arrangements for licensing water users and do licence fees fully recover this cost? Page 59 COST Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council As mentioned in 10.1.4 above, unsupplemented water licence holders are subject to an interim $50 annual licence fee to cover some of the costs associated with licensing. The interim water licence fee will be reviewed as part of the Review of the Value of Water being coordinated by Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. This review involves external consultancies to investigate the scarcity value of water, externalities, and water resource management costs. A significant component of the review of water resource management costs involves assessing the costs associated with water licensing, including monitoring and enforcement costs. The review will also determine what proportion of these costs should be met by users and how they should be recovered. 10.1.8 Consumption-based Pricing In its 2001 assessment, the NCC found that pricing by SunWater’s rural water services reflected consumption-based pricing principles consistent with CoAG commitments. For the 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking advice on any changes in these arrangements since the 2001 assessment. All SunWater water supply schemes use a two-part tariff water-charging model, including a volumetric consumption-based component. The price paths are based on nominal volumetric water allocations and forecast announced volumetric allocations. Under existing price paths users are charged a Part A tariff based on their nominal allocation (permanent) and a Part B tariff per ML of metered water deliveries (to a maximum of announced allocation). Individual water supply schemes/segments were modelled and unique Part A and B charges were determined for each scheme. Part A charges represent about 70% of revenue and are designed to meet the fixed costs of operating and maintaining water supply infrastructure and service, regardless of water availability -- without sufficient fixed revenues, SunWater‘s water ability to maintain supply capacity would erode. Part B charges contribute 30% of revenues, which approximates the variable cost to SunWater of delivering announced allocations. 10.2 Urban Water and Wastewater While the focus of the 2004 assessment is on rural water reform, and the NCC’s 2004 assessment framework does not seek specific information on urban water reform progress, the following progress report is provided for information. 10.2.1 Background The Queensland Government's overall approach to implementing CoAG water reforms for local government utilises the Local Government Act 1993, which outlines reforms to be undertaken and considered by local governments with Type 1 and Type 2 business activities. There are 18 local governments with such businesses, which account for over 84% of water connections in Queensland. The remaining 107 smaller local governments were encouraged to undertake the reforms through the $150 million Local Government National Competition Policy Page 60 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Financial Incentive Package. Final payments from the Financial Incentive Package are being made to councils in June 2004. Additionally until 2003, the Business Management Assistance Program (BMAP) provided the services of skilled consultants to help smaller to medium sized councils undertake the reforms. BMAP proved successful in greatly increasing the adoption of the CoAG water reforms within these smaller councils. Water reforms undertaken by the largest 18 local governments have been largely complete for some time now. The frameworks to ensure full cost recovery and consumption based pricing are in place and these larger councils are now grappling with more complicated technical issues associated with ongoing compliance, monitoring of the reforms and achieving appropriate market rates of return on capital. As a result of the Government‘s multi-pronged approach to urban water reform and Local Governments willingness to embrace the reforms; 91% of all water connections in Queensland are now paying for water through a two part or multi part inclining block tariff and the impending introduction of Rockhampton‘s two-part tariff will raise this figure to 92%. Specifically, 69% of connections are now subject to a two part tariff whilst a further 22% are subject to a multi part inclining block tariff. The remaining connections retain some form of fixed allocation (either fixed or unit based) with an additional excess consumption component. In 1996 and 1997, the Queensland Government made amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 to outline a framework for the implementation of CoAG water reforms by Queensland local governments. The Local Government Act 1993 outlines a three-tiered approach to the implementation of CoAG water reform by categorising councils into either Type 1 and Type 2 business activities or other councils. The expenditure thresholds to identify Type 1 and Type 2 business activities were carefully considered to capture the majority of the Queensland population and water businesses and to give the maximum reform benefits given the nature (size, scope and function) of local government in Queensland. Type 1 and Type 2 activities include an expenditure threshold to catch water and sewerage operations as they increase in size over time. Currently, the councils who are captured under the definition of Type 1 and Type 2 business activities are the largest 18 local governments in Queensland. Revenue from the largest 18 local governments' water and sewerage services equates to the vast majority of total annual expenditure in local government water activities and over 84% of water connections in Queensland. All councils outside the largest 18 local governments (the remaining 107 councils) are not legislatively required to implement CoAG water reforms, although the adoption of CoAG water pricing and tariff reforms is strongly encouraged through the voluntary Code of Competitive Conduct and the Local Government NCP Financial Incentive Package (FIP). The Queensland Government is firmly of the view the adoption of CoAG water reforms should be a decision of individual councils, taking account of the circumstances of their own communities and only where implementation of CoAG water reforms has a clear public benefit. Of the various water businesses monitored for this report the vast majority are now achieving full cost recovery, representing over 98% of monitored connections. Page 61 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Attachment 3 contains a complete list of water and sewerage charging arrangements for those councils with greater than 1000 water connections. Attachment 4 provides a summary of the level to which the businesses in question have adopted costing reforms. For significant business activities the extent to which full cost pricing has been adopted is listed, for other businesses the lower level of reform, full cost recovery, is examined. Attachment 5 further examines whether the businesses have investigated the existence of CSO and cross subsidies. The return on capital is also listed. Additionally, throughout the following sections regarding full cost pricing, the following approach has been taken. For the purposes of determining the proportion of reform achieved, the QCA in its series of annual assessments considered a number of factors. These factors were: the recovery of direct costs; the recovery of indirect costs; the development of a method for allocating administrative and overhead costs; the valuation of assets via the deprival method; the adoption of an appropriate method of depreciation for assets; the appropriate treatment of contributed assets; optimisation of the asset base; the appropriate treatment of taxation equivalents (Full Cost Pricing Only), and; the recovery of a return on capital (Full Cost Pricing Only); The QCA has given a rating to each council based on how many of these elements are in place. The ratings are: “All” “Most” “Many” “Some” “None” – – – – – 100% of the elements of full cost pricing/recovery have been implemented 75% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing/recovery have been implemented 50% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing/recovery have been implemented 25% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing/recovery have been implemented 0% or greater of the elements of full cost pricing/recovery have been implemented General Note - Information in this section regarding councils outside the largest 18 local governments is provided to demonstrate the commitment of individual councils to consider improvements in the financial performance of their own water and sewerage businesses. However, the Government notes the decis ion of these individual councils to undertake reviews of the CoAG reform options is entirely voluntary. 10.2.2 Councils Operating Significant Business Activities. Tariff Arrangements Of the 18 local governments with significant water/wastewater businesses all but two have implemented either a two part tariff or a multi part inclining block tariff. In light of various jurisdictions‘ debating the merits of multi-part inclining block tariffs the Queensland Government has provided an additional distinction i n this report between the different tariff structures. Currently 6 of the 18 local governments operating significant water businesses operate a multi-part inclining Page 62 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council block tariff. A further 10 utilise the more typical two-part tariff. The remaining 2 councils, Rockhampton and Townsville, do not have a two-part tariff in place at this stage. In Townsville‘s case, council has resolved not to implement a two part tariff for its residential consumers. The Queensland Government has requested that Townsvill e keep this situation under review. Rockhampton has resolved to adopt a transitional price path aligned to its meter installation program. This price path incorporates a year of dummy billing to customers prior to putting in place a two part tariff in 2005. Further details of Rockhampton‘s price path arrangements are available on request. Full Cost Pricing/Recovery Of the Significant Business Activities, all are now achieving full cost recovery. As most of these businesses are commercialised they are measured against the higher reform level of Full Cost Pricing for the purposes of the Financial Incentive Package. Against these criteria: 12 have implemented all the elements of Full Cost Pricing; 4 have implemented most of the elements of Full Cost Pricing; Rates of Return on Capital The specific rates of return on capital for each of the Significant Business Activities are listed within Attachment 4. All Significant Business Activities (with the exception of Brisbane and Toowoomba) earned positive rates of returns, however a number fell short of the 6.5-9% target rate determined by the Department of Local Government and Planning. A number of these reduced returns are likely the result of drought conditions and the consequent water restrictions that have been in place across much of the State. In Toowoomba and Brisbane‘s case, they were not assessed by the QCA this year as they are not eligible for payments from the FIP. QCA will however be collecting this data for the 2005 assessment. 10.2.3 Greater than 5000 Water Connections (outside largest 18 Councils) Tariff Arrangements Twelve (12) local councils have over 5000 water connections but are outside of the largest 18 local governments (i.e. not defined as a Type 1 or Type 2 business activity). Progress in the area of CoAG water pricing principle reforms for these 12 councils is as follows: Redcliffe, Gladstone, Cooloola, Burdekin and Whitsunday all have a multi part inclining block tariff in place; Maryborough, Livingstone, Warwick, Beaudesert and Burnett have a two part tariff in place. As advised in earlier reports ―The Caves‖ water scheme in Livingstone Page 63 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Shire continues to utilise a fixed charge only. The scheme is uneconomical to meter and comprises only a few hundred connections; Mount Isa had previously completed a two part tariff report. The report found that the implementation of a two part tariff was not cost effective, and the council has resolved not to implement on this basis; Douglas has completed a two part tariff report, council has yet to consider its findings; and Johnstone has resolved not to implement a two part tariff. Full Cost Recovery All water businesses outside the big 18 but with above 5000 water connections achieved all of the elements of full cost recovery. Rates of Return on Capital All water business outside the big 18, but with above 5000 water connections, earned positive rates of return. All businesses except Whitsunday earned rates of return within or above the Department of Local Government‘s target rate. Whitsunday‘s rate of return was reported as 4.3%. The complete listing of the various rates of returns is shown in Attachment 4. 10.2.4 Councils with between 1000 – 5000 water connections. Tariff Arrangements The make up of councils with between 1000 and 5000 water connections has altered substantially this year. A number of councils have either entered this category for the first time or fallen out of the category due to population contraction, or in the cases of Douglas and Whitsunday, population growth. 8 Councils have implemented a multi part inclining block tariff; 12 have implemented a two part tariff, and; 15 do not have a two part tariff in place, of these: Broadsound had previously resolved to implement a two part tariff and has yet to do so; 10 councils have conducted two part tariff reviews that found implementation would not be cost effective; A further 4 councils have not conducted a two part tariff review. These are Cook Shire Council, Mount Morgan Shire Council, Murweh Shire Council and Roma Shire Council. In the case of Mount Morgan, Department of Local Government and Planning officers assisted council officers in preparing a report. This report indicated that a two part tariff would not be cost effective however it is not clear whether this report was presented to council; - Page 64 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council - Cook and Murweh Shire Councils have only recently moved into the 1000+ category of water businesses. Full Cost Recovery Water businesses with more than 1000, but less than five thousand connections greatly improved their performance in terms of full cost recovery this year. 26 businesses have achieved ―All‖ of the elements of full cost recovery; 3 have achieved ―Most‖ of the elements of full cost recovery; 2 have achieved ―Many‖ of the elements of full cost recovery; 1 has achieved ―Some‖ of the elements of full cost recovery, and; 3 council‘s level of achievement was unable to be determined due to insufficient information being provided regarding particular revenues and costs. Rates of Return All businesses that supplied sufficient information (34) earned positive rates of return with only 4 businesses not earning a rate of return in line with, or exceeding, the Department of Local Government and Planning‘s target of 6.5-9%. 10.2.4 NQ Water NQ Water is similar to a joint local government and as such is not currently assessed by the QCA. Correspondence with NQ Water's Chief Executive Officer indicates that NQ Water remains committed to the full implementation of full cost pricing. NQ Water has advised that it is substantially achieving full cost recovery to the extent that: NQ Water recovers direct and indirect costs associated with supply; valuation of assets is based on the deprival method; depreciation of assets is based on the deprival value allocated over the assets useful life; a rate of return, equivalent to the industry benchmark, is earned; and CSOs are identified, costed and funded. AEC economic consultants are being retained to develop the new pricing model to incorporate a two part tariff and any remaining full cost recovery reforms. This process has been ongoing for 12 months and further details regarding the proposed structure of the new pricing model will be made available as soon as the Government is advised. 10.2.5 Trade Waste Charging Attachment 6 contains information collected as part of the Local Government Comparative Information report. As per discussions with the National Competition Council earlier this year, information has for the first time been collected by the Government on trade waste charging arrangements of Local Government Sewerage Businesses. Previously attention had only been given to the Big 18 Local Government in terms of trade waste charging arrangements. Page 65 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council In summary, the data indicates that almost all larger councils in urban and regional areas have put in place some form of trade waste charging regime. The details of their charging are listed within Attachment6. As indicated in last year‘s supplementary report to the NCC, smaller councils have not implemented trade waste charging where they lack any major generators of trade waste. In relation to the data collected for the comparative information report: 14 local governments did not submit information returns (down from 22 last year); 32 (up from 28 last year) local governments indicated that they had a trade waste charging regime in place, and; 79 local governments indicated that they did not have a trade waste charging regime in place. All large or very large urban and regional councils (13 in total as per the Australian Classification of Local Governments) now have a trade waste charging regime in place. The remaining 19 councils with trade waste charging regimes in place are predominantly medium urban sized councils and very large or large rural agricultural councils. 10.2.6 Community Service Obligations and Cross Subsidies The Local Government Act 1993 requires the largest 18 local governments with significant water and sewerage business activities to identify and publicly report any cross subsidies that exist between different classes of customers and to identify and publicly report any Community Service Obligations (CSOs). For the remaining 107 councils with water and sewerage businesses that are not considered significant (i.e. generate expenditure less than $8.6 million), the identification and reporting of CSOs and cross subsidies is not required under legislation. However, the FIP provided a financial incentive for the councils to undertake such an analysis while it was in operation. In terms of Community Service Obligations (CSOs) all businesses, with one exception, have put in place some form of policy to identify, cost and fund CSOs. All significant business activities have in place robust processes to deal with CSOs. In the 5000+ water connection category all but two councils have sufficiently robust processes  the two exceptions being Burnett and Whitsunday. In both cases the QCA has raised some technical questions regarding the costings of these CSOs. The two councils are expected to provide further information or modify their costings in the near future. Particular details of these discrepancies are listed in Attachment 5. Within the 1000-5000 connection category 24 councils have robust processes in place. A further 9 have put in place processes whose calculations have been questioned by the QCA. Only one council, Belyando appears not to have taken any action in regards to the identification, costing and funding of CSOs. Since the last report, some progress has been made in the area of cross subsidy identification and reporting. Last year only 10 businesses outside of the largest 18 local Page 66 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council governments had examined cross subsidies. This year that figure has risen to 19. Significant work still needs to be done in this area, however the relatively recent publication and release of simplified guidelines for the identification and calculation of cross subsidies is expected to bring this figure up further. 10.2.7 Summary Trade waste charging regimes are in place within the all larger urban and regional councils and a number of larger rural and medium urban and regional councils have adopted suitable trade waste charging regimes. Meanwhile improvements to the Local Government Comparative Information Report have substantially improved transparency of Community Service Obligation provision in Councils. In the area of cross subsidy identification and reporting further progress is required amongst the smaller councils. The Government is in the process of writing to these councils to make them aware of the existence of the new guidelines and offering assistance in their implementation. In terms of full cost recovery it appears that almost every water business in Queensland with over 1000 connections is achieving full cost recovery. Finally, over 91% of all connections in Queensland are now priced via a two part or multi part inclining block tariff. The remaining councils have largely proved their case that the implementation of a two part tariff is not cost effective. 10.3 Water Management 10.3.1 Water Entitlement Systems In assessing whether jurisdictions are meeting their obligations in relation to establishing water entitlement systems in accordance with CoAG obligations, the NCC has indicated it will use the following criteria: water entitlements should be linked to a robust adaptive resource planning system; water entitlements should be clearly specified so as to promote efficient trade within the social, physical and ecological constraints of the catchments; water entitlements should be specified over the long term, exclusive, enforceable and enforced, transferable and divisible to provide for sustainability and community needs and to reflect the scarcity value of water; water users should have the highest possible level of security in terms of the nature of the entitlement, and absolute security of ownership; Governments may provide compensation where, for example, reductions in reliabilities or other parameters are abrupt or extensive, but the CoAG 1994 water reform agreement does not require them to provide compensation. Consequently, whether compensation is provided is not currently relevant to the assessment of compliance; and Any constraints on the capacity to trade water entitlements should be based on a sound public benefit justification and minimise impacts on efficient trading. Page 67 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council At its 29 August 2003 meeting, CoAG agreed to develop a National Water Initiative which will include a framework for a nationally compatible system of water access entitlements. In this context, the NCC is seeking a report from all jurisdictions for its 2004 assessment on: progress with developing water management plans, including the anticipated timing for completing the plans for the water sources nominated on each jurisdiction’s agreed implementation program. Specific to Queensland, the NCC has also requested advice on the significance of the water sources for which water resource and resource operations plans will remain to be completed after 2005.; progress with converting existing water allocations to new entitlement systems; their systems for registering water entitlements, including how these recognise third party interests (such as the interests of financial institutions); and the consistency of their water entitlement arrangements with CoAG obligations. Water Management Plans – Converting Existing Entitlements to Allocations In Queensland, the water management planning process entails the preparation of Water Resource Plans (WRPs) which are made under the Water Act 2000 as subordinate legislation. The Act provides a process by which the plans are implemented and individual entitlements7 are converted to tradeable water allocations through an implementation plan known as a resource operations plan (ROP). ROPs give practical effect to the water allocation security objectives and environmental flow objectives specified in the WRP. Once the ROP is approved, existing water entitlements specified in the plan are converted to water allocations. The final ROPs for the Burnett and Fitzroy Basin were approved in May and December 2004 respectively. Between them, these plans resulted in the creation of approximately 2,600 tradeable water allocations with a total volume of 750,000 megalitres. A list of progress in the development of WRPs and ROPS in other catchments is provided in Table 10.1. Queensland intends releasing drafts of a further 7 ROPS during 2004. By 30 June 2005, it is anticipated that WRPs will have been completed for 91% of the state‘s land area and will be in development for a further 2.4%. As at 30 June 2005, WRPs are expected to be in place for most of the State‘s major river systems, with the exception of the Moreton, Wet Tropics and Whitsunday regions. At such time, work will have formally commenced on preparing the Moreton and Whitsunday plans, with preparation of the Wet Tropics Plans scheduled to commence late in 2005. Work also will be underway on amending the Burnett, Burdekin and Fitzroy WRPs to include the management of groundwater. The Moreton Water Resource Plan covers the Brisbane and Pine river systems, which include the water supply storages for Brisbane and surrounding cities. Ninety percent of water used in the region is for urban and industrial purposes. The region has approximately 570,000 ML/annum of available urban and industrial water supplies of which 410,000 ML/annum has been allocated for use. This compares with urban and industrial water usage of about 340,000 ML/annum. In this context, the river and groundwater systems of the Moreton catchments are very significant to this State as 7 In Queensland, the term ‗water entitlements‘ is used to refer to the current mix of water licences, water allocations and interim water allocations. Page 68 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council water sources. For this reason, the Moreton Water Resource Plan will entail an unparalleled level of consultation, investigation and analysis. This is due to the high level of water development that has already occurred and associated water availability relative to water demands and human resource considerations. A major project called the southeast Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy covering more than twenty local government areas has commenced. It will address issues of water sharing and water security to support regional development. The outcomes will have a major bearing on water distribution in the region and significantly affect water allocation outcomes for WRPs in the Moreton Region when balancing human and environmental water needs. This will necessarily mean that the Moreton Plan cannot be finalised prior to 30 June 2005. The Whitsunday Water Resource Plan will cover the Proserpine and O‘Connell river systems. The only storage of significance in the proposed Whitsunday plan area is Peter Faust Dam, a 491,400ML storage that supplies water to the towns of Bowen, Proserpine, Whitsunday and Midge Point as well as to the district‘s sugar mill and cane farms. The O‘Connell River system is free of major impoundments and water demands are largely limited to the use of base flows for supplementary irrigation of sugar cane. The Whitsunday Water Resource Planning process is currently at the stage of data collection and hydrology model development, with the formal planning process scheduled to commence in the next 6 months. The Wet Tropics Water Resource Plan covers the major north Queensland coastal rivers from the Herbert in the south to the Daintree in the north. The region receives the state‘s highest average annual rainfalls and, as a consequence, its rivers tend to be strongly perennial. Associated with the high rainfall, most of the area‘s crops tend to be rain fed; however, there are significant areas of bananas and other tropical fruits that are irrigated in the drier months of the year. The region‘s towns tend to draw their water supplies directly from river flows, without the need for impoundments. The only major water storage in the proposed Wet Tropics plan area is Koombooloomba Dam (used exclusively for hydro-electric power generation), which is located on the headwaters of the Tully River. The river systems of the Wet Tropics are highly significant in terms of their environmental values and local significance as water supply sources for urban and agricultural uses. However, the relative abundance of water compared to demand has meant that the Wet Tropics Water Resource Plan has been assigned a lower level of priority than those parts of the State where existing and future consumptive pressures on the water resources are greater. By 30 June 2005, Queensland expects to have completed nine ROPs covering 23% of the State‘s land area. A further seven ROPs will be in various stages of development. The ROPs that will be in development will include that for the Burdekin River system, which contains the state‘s largest irrigation scheme. The Burdekin, together with the Logan and Mary river systems are significant sources of water supplies for both agriculture and urban/industrial uses. The Calliope, Gulf, Mitchell and Georgina and Diamantina catchments, for which ROPs also will be still in development, currently support little consumptive water use and the corresponding ROPs will largely define processes for dealing with unallocated water identified as being available in the respective WRPs. Queensland‘s current timetable for implementing water resource and ROPs provides a realistic and achievable program for the roll out of water reforms. While a reasonable Page 69 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council body of work will remain outstanding as of June 2005, it is not practicable to accelerate the process without compromising the quality of the science and/or community confidence in the process. Table 10.1: WRPs and ROPs -- Milestones and Targets STAGE 1 - Water Resource Plans Plan Area Barron Border Rivers Boyne Burdekin Burnett Calliope Condamine-Balonne Cooper Creek Fitzroy Gulf Georgina and Diamantina Logan Mary Mitchell Moonie Moreton Pioneer Warrego/Paroo/ Bulloo/Nebine Wet Tropics Whitsunday ʘ Indicates target date Announced Preparing draft N/A N/A 24 Apr 99 17 Jan 02 N/A 24 Apr 99 N/A N/A N/A 6 Jun 03 21 Nov 01 21 Nov 01 20 May 02 24 Feb 99 19 Nov 98 Mar 04ʘ N/A 19 Nov 98 Dec 05ʘ Aug 04ʘ Draft plan released 20 Dec 01 8 Jul 02 23 May 00 Jun 04ʘ 26 Jun 00 Jan 05ʘ 3 Dec 03 17 Dec 99 3 Sep 1998 Oct 04ʘ 3 Nov 03 Mar 05ʘ Sep 04ʘ Oct 04ʘ 8 Jul 02 Mar 06ʘ 18 Dec 01 8 Jul 02 Jul 06ʘ Aug 05ʘ Final plan approved 19 Dec 02 5 Dec 03 14 Dec 00 Dec 04ʘ 14 Dec 00 Jul 05ʘ Jun 04ʘ 7 Feb 00 23 Dec 99 Apr 05ʘ Apr 04ʘ Mar 06ʘ Jun 05ʘ Apr 05ʘ 5 Dec 03 Oct 06ʘ 20 Dec 02 5 Dec 03 Jan 07ʘ Feb 06ʘ STAGE 2 - Resource Operations Plans Announced Preparing draft 29 Jan 03 8 Jul 02 24 Mar 01 Jun 04ʘ 20 Feb 02 Aug 05ʘ 3 Dec 03 N/A 23 Nov 00 Oct 04ʘ 3 Nov 03 Jul 05ʘ Mar 05ʘ Oct 04ʘ 8 Jul 02 Jul 06ʘ 29 Jan 03 8 Jul 02 2007ʘ Feb 06ʘ Draft plan released Apr 04ʘ Mar 05ʘ 8 Dec 01 Jun 05ʘ 2 Dec 02 May 06ʘ Mar 05ʘ N/A 2 Dec 02 Jun 05ʘ Dec 04ʘ Oct 06ʘ Jun 06ʘ Jun 05ʘ Jun 04ʘ Sep 07ʘ May 04ʘ Jun 04ʘ 2008ʘ Jul 06ʘ Final plan approved Dec 04ʘ Jun 05ʘ 24 Jun 03 Dec 05ʘ 29 May 03 Nov 06ʘ Jun 05ʘ N/A 9 Jan 04 Dec 05ʘ Jul 05ʘ Sep 07ʘ Sep 07ʘ Dec 05ʘ Dec 04ʘ May 08ʘ Dec 04ʘ Dec 04ʘ 2008ʘ Jan 07ʘ Water Entitlement Registers The Water Allocations Register has been established and is operational. The register records the details of the approximately 2,600 water allocations so far created. The register is operated by the Queensland Resource Registry, the same entity responsible for the land titles register, and all dealings in respect of water allocations are dealt with in the same manner as land dealings and the same quality assurance procedures apply. The register may be searched by the public. Page 70 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council The register records the registered proprietor of the allocation, the nominal volume and various conditions, which vary depending on whether the allocation is a supplemented allocation (i.e. supplied from infrastructure) or unsupplemented. The register also allows for the recording of interests in water allocations, in the same way as interests may be recorded in land. Accordingly, a third party with an interest in a water allocation may register a mortgage or caveat over the allocation. Where water allocations are created under a ROP (from the conversion of an existing entitlement), persons with an interest in the converting entitlement (or the land to which it is attached) have the opportunity to register their interest prior to the allocation being created. This allows the interest holder a period of time to register a mortgage over the water allocation before the allocation can be sold to a third party and ensures priority. In the Fitzroy, an intention to record an interest was lodged by financiers (or other interest holders) in respect of 572 of the 910 allocations created. In the Burnett approximately 900 notices were recorded in respect of the 1694 allocations in that basin. Consistency with CoAG obligations Queensland‘s water entitlement arrangements under the Water Act 2000 are fully consistent with the relevant CoAG obligations. Under the Act, water allocations are: separated from land title; transferable, in that they may be traded independently of land, in accordance with the trading rules prescribed in the governing ROP; specified in terms of volume; guaranteed for the 10-year life of the WRP, with compensation payable if a change is made to the plan that reduces the value of the allocation during the life of the plan; protected by water allocation security objectives specified in the WRP, which both estimate and protect the reliability of being able to take water under the allocation; recorded in the same way as land titles on a public register; and can be used as security, with capacity for third parties to register their interest in the allocation. 10.3.2 Water for the Environment CoAG senior officials determined that the 2004 assessment would include a stocktake of progress on environmental allocations against jurisdictions’ agreed implementation programs to ensure States and Territories are on track to meet CoAG’s 2005 deadline. Therefore, the NCC has indicated that for 2004, each jurisdiction should: report on its progress in implementing water management arrangements for river and groundwater sources against the 2005 CoAG deadline for substantial completion of environmental allocations on governments’ agreed implementation programs, including: Page 71 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council a list of all draft and final water management plans, and details of the stage of development of plans in progress (including when the plan and implementation arrangements are likely to be completed); copies of a representative sample of completed water management plans or web addresses for completed plans; and details of how the sample of water management plans (and related arrangements) address the obligations in the CoAG water reform agreement and the ARMCANZ/ANZECC national principles, including the extent to which the plans provide appropriate allocations to the environment (having regard to the seasonality, frequency, magnitude and duration of flow events). if the water allocated for environmental purposes for particular river and groundwater sources is significantly different from that recommended by the best available science, provide information on: the process used to determine the environmental allocations, including the composition of reference groups and a summary of the information made available to the affected community; the environmental risks posed by the environmental water allocations, including an estimate of the extent to which the environmental allocations are likely to affect the achievement of a healthy working river; and the nature of, and case, for socioeconomic tradeoffs from recommended environmental allocations. Specifically in relation to Queensland, the NCC is also looking for Queensland to have finalised the Condamine–Balonne Basin WRP (including appropriate environmental outcomes) and the ROP. Queensland should show that it has: finalised plans for the implementation of the event based environmental flow rules, as recommended by the scientific review panel, to provide appropriate flow for the ecological assets (including the Narran Lakes and Culgoa national parks) in consultation with the local community and stakeholders; provided an opportunity for the Murray–Darling Basin Commission Independent Audit Group to comment on the water resource plan, and considered the audit group’s comments in finalising the plan; explained, in line with the requirements of the Water Act 2000, how the final water resource plan addresses issues raised during public consultations, and adopted monitoring arrangements to evaluate the performance of the plan; and committed to the further research recommended by the scientific review, particularly to refine the environmental flow requirements. Since the 2003 assessment, significant milestones have been achieved in implementing the State‘s water planning timetable include the completion of the Border, Moonie and Warrego/Paroo/Bulloo/Nebine WRPs plans and the Fitzroy ROP. Table 10.1 details existing final and draft WRPs and ROPs and of the timeline for plans that are in progress or proposed. Copies of all final and draft WRPs and ROPs are available on the Department‘s web site at http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/wrp/index.html Page 72 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Under the Water Act 2000, WRPs must be prepared based on the best scientific information available. In all water resource planning processes undertaken to date, Technical Advisory Panels (TAPs) have been appointed to provide the scientific information required as input into the development of the water resource plan. The Technical Advisory Panels usually are comprised of external experts with skills and knowledge in a wide range of disciplines relating to physical and biological riverine processes. Key areas of expertise would typically include the following: Environmental hydrology (including surface water, subartesian water and overland flow relationships); Aquatic ecology (including floodplain, waterhole and wetland ecology); Riparian and aquatic vegetation; Water quality; Hydrogeology; Fluvial geomorphology; and Coastal and estuarine processes (coastal catchments). The TAP assessments typically occur in three phases, which consist of: 1. 2. 3. An assessment of the current condition of the river or aquifer system; Identification of hydrologic indicators of river health relevant to the particular river or aquifer system; and An assessment of the ecological and geomorphological consequences associated with possible future water allocation and management scenarios. The reports prepared by the TAP are typically published in association with the draft of the WRP in order to inform discussion on the allocation and management strategies contained in the draft plan. Copies of published TAP reports are available on the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy web site. The first phase of the TAP assessment involves a literature review and fieldwork to assess the current ecological and geomorphological conditions. Generally, these assessments occur on a reach-by-reach basis and relate current conditions and trends to expected conditions. The TAP is required to relate changes in flow regime to changes or trends in river/aquifer condition. In addition, this phase of the TAP assessment also identifies critical aquatic ecosystems and areas of unique conservation value. Phase 2 of the assessment identifies the key flow characteristics relevant to maintaining ecosystem health (eg seasonality, frequency, magnitude and duration). Ecosystem health is typically described in terms of attributes such as geomorphology, aquatic vegetation, riparian vegetation, aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish. The phase 3 assessments evaluate how changes in flow characteristics resulting from possible future allocation and management strategies would impact on riverine health. To date, these assessments have been based primarily on a process of benchmarking. Benchmarking involves determining relationships between levels of departure from the natural flow regime and environmental condition. These relationships are determined from assessment of a range of benchmark sites subject to varying degrees of flow Page 73 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council modification. Levels of departure from the natural flow regime are quantified in terms of key hydrological indicators. The environmental flows benchmarking technique provides a framework for analysis of existing and predicted future environmental conditions and the river‘s environmental flow requirements. The Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology (CRCFE) endorsed this technique in its review of Queensland‘s environmental flow assessment methodology in February 2000. The output of the benchmarking process is a relationship between river health and key flow statistics and is generally presented using risk assessment diagrams. These diagrams have been used to give a graphical representation of the likely extent/risk of ecological change as a result of changes in a particular flow statistic from natural. Flow statistics and condition assessments for benchmark sites are used to indicate the likely degree of environmental impact that would result from a given change to a particular flow statistic. In this manner, an indication can be given as to the level of ecological risk that would be associated with various levels of water resource allocation or different management scenarios. Flow statistics for existing developments are also shown plotted on the risk assessment diagrams. This final phase of the TAP assessment provides a clear outline of how water allocation and management strategies presented in a draft WRP will deliver on environmental flow requirements. In preparing a WRP, the Minister must consider existing water entitlements and the State‘s future water requirements. As such, the assessments undertaken by the TAP occur in parallel with assessments of the existing and future economic demands for the allocation of water for consumptive purposes. In considering options for meeting future consumptive water requirements, the Government has adopted a philosophy that gives priority to making better use of existing sources (e.g. through water trading, efficiency improvements and water recycling) before the allocation of additional water is contemplated. Furthermore, the development of additional water infrastructure needs to be consistent with Treasury guidelines, which require economic and financial viability to be demonstrated. When the Minister finalises a WRP, under section 51 of the Water Act 2000, a report must be produced on issues raised during the consultation process and how the issues have been addressed. In accordance with previous commitments made to the NCC, these section 51 consultation reports include background information on the Plan, a summary of the issues raised during public consultation, the implications of the Plan, and a discussion of those aspects that significantly differ from the publicly exhibited draft Plan. Where development of a Plan contains trade-offs between environmental water requirements and economic requirements for water, the basis and implications of such trade-offs are explained in the consultation reports. Given that the majority of Queensland‘s rivers and aquifer systems are not heavily allocated, in many instances, economic requirements for water have been accommodated at very low levels of environmental risk (e.g. Barron and Pioneer water resource plans). Condamine Balonne Water Resource Plan In July 2002, the Queensland Government commissioned an independent review of the science underpinning the assessment of the current and future ecological condition of the Lower Balonne River system. The review was undertaken by an independent Page 74 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Scientific Review Panel, which consisted of Professor Peter Cullen (Chairman), Professor Russell Mein and Dr Richard Marchant. Over a period of six months, the Scientific Review Panel sought public and scientific submissions, and liaised closely with the community through a Lower Balonne Community Reference Group, to ensure everyone‘s opinion and information about the ecology, workings and management of the river system was properly considered. In accordance with its Terms of Reference, the Scientific Review Panel prepared a report for the Queensland Government summarising its findings in January 2003. In summary, the Review: identified four important ecological assets in the Lower Balonne that need to be managed, including: a) the biota of the rivers & distributary channels of the Lower Balonne and their associated wetlands, b) the internationally recognized Narran lakes, c) the National Parks of the Culgoa floodplain, and d) the Darling River itself. found that the rivers and wetlands of the Lower Balonne system are presently in a reasonable ecological condition, but this condition is expected to deteriorate if the present capacity to extract water from the system should actually be exercised. noted that there are significant economic and social benefits to the community from the irrigation developments of the Lower Balonne, and that the irrigation community itself recognised the importance of protecting these natural areas from significant degradation. highlighted that the challenge for Government is to use the best available science to ensure management provides a wetting regime appropriate to protect these important ecological assets, and yet provide the maximum amount of water for irrigation that is possible without causing significant degradation of the system. considered that it is possible to reduce any impacts to acceptable levels by careful management of floods that ensures the various wetland assets, including the Narran lakes and the Culgoa National Parks, receive appropriate wetting. recommended that better management of flow events be achieved through close consultation with the community, given the need for a cooperative approach to manage the large number of extraction points and individuals involved. noted that although flow is seen as the most important stress in this system, there are other factors that can affect the health of the Lower Balonne that will need to be managed effectively. These include, for example, existing land use practices (that can affect runoff and contaminant or sediment loads), and operation of instream weirs and dams (that can affect flows and fish movement). In December 2003, the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines released a draft WRP, and an associated Overview Report, for the Condamine Balonne catchment for public review and submissions closing February 2004. At the same time that the draft Plan was released, the Department of Natural Resources and Mines gave public notice of the intention to commence the preparation of an ROP for the Condamine-Balonne Page 75 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council catchment. Under Queensland legislation, an ROP is the principle mechanism by which a WRP is implemented. The release of the draft Condamine Balonne WRP followed many months of intensive and detailed consultations with the local community and stakeholders to develop eventbased environmental flow rules and other management strategies for the Lower Balonne, as recommended by the Scientific Review Panel that was chaired by Professor Peter Cullen. To assist in these consultations, the Minister convened a Lower Balonne Community Reference Group that was made up of stakeholders from the Lower Balonne region, including irrigators and graziers from Queensland and New South Wales, local government representatives, members of the Indigenous Community and environmental stakeholders. This Group and/or its various sub-committees met at least fortnightly between May and December 2003 to develop its proposal for a draft Plan that addressed the recommendations of the Scientific Review Panel. In developing and finalising its proposal, the Group itself convened a number of public meetings in the Lower Balonne area. It also sought comments from the Scientific Review Panel, particularly in relation to the wetting regimes for the Narran Lakes. In its reply on the Community Reference Group‘s draft proposal, the Scientific Review Panel stated that:Given our current understanding of alternative feeding areas we believe it is likely the birds will be able to feed under this regime ,and so we believe the wetting regime proposed is a reasonable interim solution until further information is available from the Narran lakes project. This watering strategy seems appropriate to provide protection for the Narran lakes until further information becomes available. We have not seen the modelling showing its impact on the Culgoa floodplain wetting, and the relevant agencies still need to specify appropriate wetting regimes to protect these other ecological assets. The report does not specifically consider the impacts on the Darling river or the channels of the LB floodplain but we believe they will be advantaged by the proposed regime. Following this advice from the Scientific Review Panel, the Group then unanimously agreed to submit its proposal to the Minister for his consideration when preparing the draft WRP. The Minister also consulted with two other Ministerial Advisory Committees made up of representatives from the middle and upper reaches of the Condamine River catchment. These Committees also each developed proposals that were submitted to the Minister for his consideration when preparing the draft WRP. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines were involved in over thirty public meetings, workshops and briefing sessions that were held throughout the CondamineBalonne catchment, including in New South Wales, about the draft WRP. A number of special inter-agency briefings were also held in both Brisbane and Sydney, including with the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council‘s Independent Audit Group (IAG). Page 76 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council As a number of public workshops were postponed until after the Queensland Government elections in February 2004, the Minister decided to extend the deadline for the receipt of public submissions until 19 March 2004. After this time, all public submissions – including those received from other agencies, the IAG, stakeholder groups and individual members of the public – will be taken into account by the Minister when finalising the WRP. It is anticipated that the Condamine Balonne WRP will be finalised mid 2004, subject to the issues raised in the submission process. In addition, it is expected the Condamine Balonne ROP will be finalised in mid 2005. Based on the proposals developed by the Lower Balonne Community Reference Group and the two Ministerial Advisory Groups, the draft Condamine-Balonne WRP included a number of important and innovative features to address the recommendations of the Scientific Review Panel: the inclusion of ecological outcomes that specifically recognise the four ecological assets identified by the Scientific Review Panel; the implementation of an event-based flow management approach that restricts daily extractions by irrigators from environmentally important flow events in order to provide improved flow outcomes for the four ecological assets; the establishment of a ―water Bank‖ concept that provides irrigators with an opportunity to offset their reduced extractions by allowing them to take some additional water during very large, less environmentally important, flow events.; the commitment to establishing enhanced flow monitoring, prediction and reporting systems to support real-time water sharing decisions, as well as subsequent analysis and operational refinement; the inclusion of a small cutback in all water harvesting entitlements in order to provide for some development of sleeper and dozer licences, thereby ensuring no increase in the overall amount of water taken; the regulation of overland flow extractions throughout the catchment, including the introduction of licensing requirements and conditions (including restrictions that prevent the present capacity to extract water to actually be exercised) in the Lower Balonne that recognise the importance of integrating the management of water harvesting and overland flow water extractions on the floodplain; and the establishment of Management Advisory Councils, including for the Lower Balonne, that would be representative of all community stakeholders and be responsible for advising the Minister and the department on the implementation and day-to-day operation of event-based management, monitoring, prediction and research. In their review of the Lower Balonne system, the Scientific Review Panel also identified a number of priority areas of research that it considered necessary to inform water resource planning in the future, particularly in relation to the ecological function and flow requirements for the Narran Lakes and Culgoa floodplain systems. The Department of Natural Resources and Mines was integral in developing and supporting Page 77 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council a major scientific study that has been underway on the Narran Lakes since April 2003, as well as a recently approved scoping study on the Lower Balonne floodplains. For example, in 2003/04 departmental surveyors and hydrographers undertook a complete ground and waterway survey of the entire Narran Lakes system, which led to improved predictions of the way in which the lakes were likely to fill and spill. These predictions were subsequently validated during the small flow event that occurred into the Narran Lakes in January 2004. The draft WRP proposes that approved measuring devices must be used to measure the volumes of water taken by all water licences and water allocations, as well as overland flow extractions from floodplains, in the WRP area. Metering of water extractions will assist in enhanced levels of compliance monitoring, reporting and overall management of the resource throughout the catchment, particularly with respect to compliance with the water sharing rules and diversion limits. It will also lead to improved information being available for future assessments, and assist in assessments of the effectiveness of the WRP‘s strategies in achieving its outcomes. The draft WRP proposes that monitoring and annual reporting be undertaken to collect information that will be used to undertake ongoing assessments of whether the requirements of the WRP and the ROP are being complied with, as well as to review whether the WRP is achieving its outcomes. The requirement in the draft WRP for an annual report, combined with its metering and other water monitoring requirements, will support the periodic assessment and demonstration of Queensland‘s compliance with the Murray-Darling Basin Cap. Coupled with ongoing research, information from monitoring programs will also assist in improving the understanding of the matters affecting the health of riverine and associated systems in the basin. In addition to the annual report, the draft WRP proposes that after five years the Minister prepare a special report that includes information about: the accuracy of flow gauging in the WRP area; community views on the implementation of the WRP; the appropriateness of the WRP‘s performance indicators for achieving its outcomes; progress in the research and monitoring of the WRP‘s outcomes for the Narran Lakes and the Culgoa floodplain; and the effectiveness of the flow event management rules in achieving the WRP‘s outcomes. Based on consideration of the information in the above report, the Minister may decide to initiate a formal review of the WRP in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Water Act 2000. A copy of all the documents referred to above is available on the department‘s website at: http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/wrp/condamine.html Page 78 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10.4 Water Trading For the 2004 assessment of progress in relation to interstate and intrastate water trading, the NCC is seeking information on: current trading rules and zones (including the trading rules in water management plans); legislative and institutional arrangements; the mechanisms in place to avoid adverse environmental impacts from trade on river and groundwater health; restrictions on trade (including restrictions in water management plans), including: the physical, social or ecological reasons for the restrictions; and a robust public benefit case for restrictions that are not aimed at protecting the environment or ensuring the practical management of trading; recent (intrastate and interstate) trade, including the value, volume, location and nature (for example, permanent versus temporary trades, transfers from lower to higher value uses) of trades; and the availability of market information (including on price) and trading mechanisms (such as water exchanges). In addition, specifically in relation to Queensland, the NCC for Queensland to: report on developments in the permanent water trading trial; report on the trading rules in subsequently completed resource operations plans; report on the expected extent of demand for water trading in the water sources for which resource operations plans will remain to be completed after 2005; confirm that the demand for trading in the areas not intended to be covered by a water resource plan and resource operations plan is low and commit to considering the implementation of water management (including trading) arrangements if demand increases; report on the timeliness of approval processes for applications to trade (in the Burnett Basin as well as in the schemes covered by the permanent trading trial); and outline developments in water trading mechanisms and the availability of market information. 10.4.1 Current trading rules and zones Trading rules, referred to as water allocation change rules, are set out in the ROP for each basin. ROPs have been approved for the Burnett Basin and the Fitzroy Basin. Typically the rules specify permitted changes and prohibited changes to the location from which water can be taken, the nominal volume of the water allocation and the priority group and purpose of the water allocation. For physical reasons, trading is limited to the catchment covered by the ROP. The plan area itself may be broken into zones –based on hydrological considerations. Generally Page 79 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council speaking, a water allocation will allow the holder to take water from anywhere within the zone. This allows the allocation to be sold to another water user within the zone and no change is necessary to the allocation for the purchaser to be able to take water. If the water is to be traded to someone in a different zone, then the allocation may be changed in accordance with the rules in the ROP. The plan will usually include pretested volumes of water that may be traded from zone to zone, without impacting on reliability of supply and the achievement of environmental flow objectives. If the change can be made within these limits then the change will be approved. If the change would cause the limits to be exceeded, then an individual assessment and the public advertisement of the application are required. 10.4.2 Legislative and institutional arrangements The Water Act 2000 provides the legislative framework for the creation and trading of water allocations. It establishes a water resource planning process, which results in catchment-based water resource plans and the implementing ROPs. These plans result in the creation of tradeable water allocations and specify the rules govern trading, to protect both users and the environment. The Water Regulation 2002 also provides an interim trading regime whereby the holders of interim water allocations may trade their allocations to other land. This process applies in those areas prescribed by the regulation – presently in the Mareeba-Dimbulah Water and Mary River Supply Schemes. The majority of supplemented water supply schemes within Queensland are now managed (under resource operations licences or interim resource operations licences) by the government owned corporation SunWater. Within these schemes, it is the holder of the resource operations licence that is responsible for temporary trading of water allocations (termed seasonal water assignments). The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy remains responsible for approving all changes to water allocations (such as a change to the location to allow water to be traded to another zone). The Department is also responsible for temporary trading outside of water supply schemes. 10.4.3 Mechanisms to Avoid Adverse Environmental Impacts Under the Water Act 2000 all water resource plans that provide for the establishment of tradeable water allocations are required to include performance indicators that are relevant to environmental health and environmental flow objectives for those indicators. Water resource plans require that any decision made under the plan be consistent with the environmental flow objectives and the trading rules included in ROPs are developed accordingly. Consequently, any trading of water allocations must ensure that environmental flows remain within the limits set by the environmental flow objectives. During the development of both the Fitzroy and Burnett ROPs, modelling was undertaken for certain trade scenarios. This identified different trading options that could occur within the limits set by the environmental flow objectives. The ROP then includes rules that allow, for example, for certain volumes to shift from one trading zone to another, with the certainty that these trades will not affect environmental outcomes. This allows water users to readily identify trades that are permitted and simplifies the Page 80 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council trading process. Trades beyond these pre-tested limits may also be allowed, but only after testing determines that the trade will not breach the environmental flow objectives. 10.4.4 Restrictions on Trade Limitations on trade are included as part of the water allocation change rules in ROPs. These limitations are based on: the physical (i.e. hydrological) limitations of the catchment – while water taken from a watercourse may be piped or otherwise relocated elsewhere for use, there are physical limitations on where water may be traded. For example, water taken from one catchment cannot be traded to another catchment where there is no hydrological connection between the two. the ecological limitations of the catchment – these are identified via the environmental flow objectives for the plan. Water allocations in both the Fitzroy and Burnett basins include a purpose for use as a condition of the allocation. An allocation holder wishing to change use is required to lodge an application to change the water allocation. However, there are no restrictions on the volume of water that can change from one use to another. This allows the monitoring of changes in use, without restricting the use for which water may be used. 10.4.5 Recent Trade Information There are no interstate trade statistics available. The following information relates therefore to intrastate trading. Temporary Trades The number of temporary trades in SunWater schemes has nearly tripled between 2000/01 and 2002/03, increasing from 872 in 2000/01 to 2, 462 in 2002/03. This is equivalent to a nearly 300 per cent increase in volume terms. The table below provides scheme specific temporary trade data. Table 10.2: Temporary Trades 2000/01 to 2002/03 Water supply scheme Awoonga Callide Pipeline Barker Barambah Bowen Broken Rivers Boyne River and Tarong Bundaberg Burdekin Haughton Callide Valley Central Lockyer Valley Chinchilla Weir Cunnamulla Weir Dawson Valley Eton Julius Dam Logan River 2000/01 No. 0 39 1 54 237 23 19 9 19 2 79 4 0 16 Vol. (ML) 0 2 370 40 2 342 4 761 7 222 453 230 490 52 7 407 226 0 901 2001/02 No. 0 50 1 6 460 118 12 0 16 2 84 29 0 29 Vol. (ML) 0 3 100 675 1 010 6 842 29 905 258 0 399 70 5 256 3 250 0 1 777 2002/03 No. 0 104 22 32 269 327 13 0 2 5 88 494 0 81 Vol. (ML) 0 5 691 922 1 935 16 101 103 858 345 0 30 421 2 788 11 433 0 4 594 Page 81 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Water supply scheme Lower Fitzroy Lower Lockyer Valley Macintyre Brook Maranoa River Mareeba Dimbulah Mary River Nogoa Mackenzie Pioneer River Proserpine River St George Three Moon Creek Upper Burnett Upper Condamine Warrill Valley 2000/01 0 22 41 0 54 17 45 0 0 45 13 36 62 35 0 471 2 907 0 2 917 1 132 20 957 0 0 5 608 448 787 4 800 1 130 2001/02 0 35 68 0 149 53 90 5 2 90 17 50 65 59 0 437 7 618 0 10 236 2 246 28 424 472 1 020 11 235 553 1 379 2 181 433 118 776 2002/03 1 12 53 0 292 175 230 11 120 71 8 43 4 5 2 462 1 125 3 571 0 27 041 3 463 42 904 2 064 9 331 8 301 649 1 800 2 845 2 971 253 184 Total all schemes 872 67 651 1 490 Source: SunWater Annual Reports, 2000/01, 2001/02, 2002/03. Permanent Transfers: Water Allocations To date permanent transfers of water allocations are only possible in the Burnett Basin and the Fitzroy Basin. As the Fitzroy ROP was only implemented in January 2004, no trades have been recorded yet. A summary of the dealings in the Burnett Basin is provided in the table below. Table 10.3: Permanent Trading of Water Allocations in the Burnett Basin (since 1 July 2003) Total number of transfers (land & water combined) Total volume of water sold along with land (ML) Total number of transfers (water only) Total volume of water sold (ML) Average price per megalitre ($/ML) Total number of changes (under ROP rules) Total number of subdivisions * 5 transfers were pursuant to a will or by way of gift ** 1,748 ML were transferred pursuant to a will or by way of gift Source: Water allocations register 62 6 508 26* 1 175** 1 226 15 159 Prices for permanent transfers in the Burnett are ranging from around $500/ML to $3 000/ML. 10.4.6 Permanent Transfer Trials: Interim Water Allocations Permanent water trading was initially trialled in the Mareeba Dimbulah WSS. Following an evaluation of the trial, the Water Regulation 2002 was amended to allow permanent transfers of interim water allocations in the Mareeba Dimbulah WSS and parts of the Mary River WSS and the Nogoa Mackenzie WSS. In those schemes, water can only be traded for stock and domestic and primary production purposes. Price data for permanent transfers of interim water allocations is not collected. It appears that the value of permanent transfers of interim water allocations in the Page 82 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Mareeba Dimbulah WSS ranges from $300/ML to $1000/ML. In the Nogoa Mackenzie WSS, the price for water has been in excess of $1000/ML. Table 10.4: Permanent Transfers of Interim Water Allocations – Mareeba Dimbulah WSS Water Year* No. of trades Volume transferred (ML) 1999/00 4 164 2000/01 9 275 2001-2002 25 912 2002-2003 35 1 001 2003 – 14 Jan 2004 12 434 Total 85 2 801 * The water year for this catchment is from 1 July to 30 June. (Source: DNRME Mareeba Office, 14 January 2004.) Table 10.5: Permanent Transfers of Interim Water Allocations – Nogoa MacKenzie WSS Water Year* No. of trades Volume transferred (ML) 2001-2002 3 637 2002-2003 8 1 147 2003 – 14 Jan 2004 14 1 159 Total 25 2 943 * The water year for this catchment is from 1 July to 30 June. (Source: DNRME Emerald Office, 14 January 2004.) The Fitzroy ROP was approved in January 2004 and all interim water allocations in the Nogoa Mackenzie WSS were converted to tradeable water allocations8. 10.4.7 Trading Rules: Subsequently Completed ROPs Trading rules, referred to as water allocation change rules, are set out in the ROP for each basin. ROPs have been approved for the Burnett Basin and the Fitzroy Basin. Typically the rules specify permitted changes and prohibited changes to the location from which water can be taken, the nominal volume of the water allocation and the priority group and purpose of the water allocation. A change to the location of a water allocation is possible between zones. If the change can be made within the maximum and minimum constraints set by the ―water allocation change rules‖ then the change will generally be approved. If an application to change the location of a water allocation would cause the maximum and minimum constraints to be exceeded, then individual assessments and public advertisements are required. 10.4.7 Expected Trade Demand: ROPs Completed Post-2005 Calliope, Baffle and Boyne Catchments In the Calliope, the Baffle and the Boyne catchments there is no immediate need for water trading. In the Calliope, for example, less than 10 per cent of the available water 8 As at 14 January 2004, some interim water allocations were awaiting conversion following provision of evidence of supply contract. Page 83 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council is currently being used. In the Baffle one grower has expressed an interest in more water. Burnett Basin Within the Burnett Basin, demand for trading in Three Moon Catchment is likely to be low. The ROP for the Burnett Basin will be amended in 2006 to include Three Moon Creek and Elliott, Isis and Gregory Rivers. The current ROP plan covers the majority of regulated and water harvesting surface water entitlements. It also covers those areas which have the highest demand for water trading. The Burnett Basin ROP plan will also be amended to cover overland flow water. This amendment will not be completed by 2005. At present, there is limited demand for water trading in overland flow water. Furthermore, the Burnett ROP will be amended to cover groundwater. This amendment will not be completed by 2005 (a water resource plan is anticipated to be finalised in 2006). It is estimated, based on an assessment of water scarcity, that there will be a medium demand for trading in some areas of the catchment, such as the Bundaberg subartesian area. Outside of these areas there is likely to be a very low demand for water trading. Both overland flow and groundwater trading will be affected by physical constraints which may limit the possibility of trading irrespective of demand. Fitzroy Basin In the Fitzroy WRP Area, demand for water trading in areas not covered by the current Fitzroy Basin ROP is likely to be relatively low. The current ROP covers the majority of regulated and water harvesting surface water entitlements, and covers those areas which have the highest demand for water trading. The ROP amendment to cover Overland Flow water will not be completed by 2005. It is not known what the current demand for water trading in Overland Flow water is. Estimation, based on an assessment of water scarcity, suggest that there will be a medium demand for trading in some areas of the catchment, such as the Comet and Nogoa-Mackenzie sub-catchments. Outside of these areas there is likely to be a very low demand for water trading. The ROP amendment to cover Groundwater will not be completed by 2005. It is not known what the current demand for water trading in Groundwater is. Estimation, based on an assessment of water scarcity, suggest that there will be a medium to high demand for trading in some areas of the catchment, such as the Callide Valley sub-artesian area. Outside of these areas there is likely to be a very low demand for water trading. Both Overland Flow and Groundwater trading will be affected by physical constraints which may limit the possibility of trading irrespective of demand. Page 84 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10.4.7 Expected Trade Demand: Areas not Covered by WRPs and ROPs The Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) confirms that demand for trading in the areas not intended to be covered by a water resource plan and ROP is low. DNRME will consider the implementation of water management arrangements (including trading) if demand for water trading in those areas increases. Water trading will only be considered in advance of planning if environmental impacts are adequately understood and can be managed. 10.4.8 Timeliness of Approval Processes Prior to the May 2003 amendments of the Water Regulation, the timeframe for processing applications in the Nogoa Mackenzie WSS and the Mareeba Dimbulah WSS was anywhere between one month and 12 months. The timeframe depended on how long it took the applicant to organise a supply contract with the water service provider (e.g. SunWater). The May 2003 amendments to the Water Regulation require applicants to attach evidence of a supply contract with the water service provider to the application. Receiving evidence of a supply contract at the same time as receiving the application for a transfer has sped up the application process. Previously applications could be made without evidence of a supply contract, despite the fact that DNRME could not make a decision until evidence of a supply contract was sighted. This means applications were left outstanding until evidence of a supply contract was provided, thereby prolonging the application process. The transfer of a water allocation (as opposed to an interim water allocation) does not require approval by DNRME. The transfer will be registered on the water allocations register provided evidence of a supply contract is provided. A standard form (Notice to Registrar of Water Allocations of existence of supply contract) has been developed for this purpose. If the permanent trade of a water allocation involves a change to the water allocation (e.g. to the location from which water can be taken), then an application for the change to DNRME is required. In the Burnett basin applications have been approved within 14 business days, provided applications were made in the approved form. Upon approval of the application, a dealing certificate is issued to the applicant. The change to the water allocation does not take effect until the dealing is registered on the water allocations register. To register the change the dealing certificate needs to be lodged with the registrar of water allocations along with evidence of a supply contract (standard form). 10.4.9 Water Trading Mechanisms Under the Water Act 2000, permanent trading of a water allocation involves transferring ownership of the water allocation and may also involve: a change to the attributes of the water allocation a subdivision of the water allocation an amalgamation of water allocations. Water allocations may also be leased in the same manner as a lease of land and also may be seasonally assigned (commonly known as 'temporary trade'). Page 85 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council Transfer of ownership of a water allocation does not require approval from DNRME. To transfer ownership of a water allocation, transfer documents and evidence of a supply contract (for supplemented supply) must be lodged with the registrar of water allocations. The transfer will not have effect until the dealing is registered. To change, subdivide or amalgamate water allocations, an application must be submitted to DNRME. If the application is approved, DNRME will issue a dealing certificate. The change/ subdivision/amalgamation will not have effect until the dealing certificate is lodged and the dealing registered on the water allocations register (WAR). A change to a water allocation cannot be registered unless there is evidence of a supply contract between the holder/buyer and the water supply scheme operator. 10.4.10 Market information The registrar of water allocations is also the registrar of land titles. The WAR records ownership information on water allocations in a similar way in which details of ownership are recorded on the land registry. The WAR is publicly accessible under section 153 (searching water allocations register) of the Water Act 2000. The DNRME web site www.nrm.qld.gov.au/water/trading also provides dynamic data with regard to the current location of water in each basin (i.e. the current volume of water in each zone and the corresponding minimum and maximum 'envelopes' as specified in the ROP trading rules). Options for reporting water trading statistics online are under consideration. DNRME will be publishing periodic reports on the departmental web site. Such information will include the locations of where water has shifted and the price paid per megalitre. This information will be provided on a scheme-by-scheme or water management area basis (i.e. for both supplemented and unsupplemented supply). Another layer of historic analysis will be undertaken on an annual basis that includes summary data on permanent trades e.g. trends in prices. Access to 'raw' data such as sale price, purchaser information, lot number, plan number, ROP and nominal volume is provided to Bulk Digital Data Distributors (with access to QVAS – Qld Valuation and Sales) along with land information to assist them in deciding how best to process data for clients. 10.5 New Rural Water Infrastructure In the 2004 assessment, the NCC will further consider new rural water projects proposed by or under way in a number of States, including Queensland. In its 2003 assessment, the NCC concluded that Queensland met CoAG obligations on economic viability and ecological sustainability for the Burnett Water Infrastructure Project, with the exception of the raising of the Ned Churchward Weir for which the environmental processes were still to be completed. The NCC's assessment of the dam and four weir projects that comprise the Burnett Water Infrastructure Project was completed during 2003. Construction of the Burnett River Dam and Eidsvold Weir commenced in late 2003 and early 2004 respectively. The construction of the Barlil Weir and Jones Weir stage 2 projects is planned to Page 86 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council commence as soon as outstanding planning matters are resolved. The impact assessment process for the Ned Churchward Weir Stage 2 remains on hold pending the completion of ongoing environmental studies relating to a species of turtle. 10.6 Public Education and Consultation For the 2004 assessment, the NCC is seeking reports on jurisdictions’ implementation of education and consultation commitments, including copies of relevant material, relating to: rural cost recovery and pricing; water management arrangements; water trading arrangements; and new rural water infrastructure. 10.6.1 Rural Cost Recovery and Pricing Government has therefore put in place an extensive consultation program regarding water pricing issues, to inform future policy. The consultation over the reporting period has included delivery of a series of Talking Water Reform sessions with irrigators across the State. These have been aimed at increasing the level of understanding of water reform, water pricing and the implications of pricing across different regions. These sessions have formed stage one of a three-stage process in developing price paths for irrigators beyond 2005. The next step, commencing early in 2004, is for officers from Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy and Treasury to begin talking with industry representatives about how we move to stage two. Stage two is the policy development phase in which the building blocks for rural water pricing are determined. This stage has commenced with the publication of two discussion papers: Local management of SunWater schemes and Future rural water pricing for SunWater schemes. These reports can be accessed at the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy web site at: www.nrm.qld.gov.au/water/pricing. 10.6.2 Water Management Arrangements Water Resource Plans In December 2003, the Minister completed the following WRPs: Moonie River Warrego/Paroo/Bulloo/Nebine catchments Border Rivers The Water Act 2000 provides for all stakeholders to be consulted during the development of WRPs and ROPs. Specifically, s51 of the Act requires that, on completion of a WRP, the Minister must prepare a report about the Plan, which is to include a summary of issues raised during the consultation process and how the issues Page 87 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council have been addressed. This report is required within 30 business days after the Plan is approved. These reports contain the following components: a record of consultation involved in developing the Plan; a summary of the issues raised during consultation and how they are addressed in the final Plan; an outline of the content of the Plan and its implications; and a summary of the differences between the draft Plan and the final Plan. In 2003, the Minister also announced the release of the following draft WRPs: Georgina/Diamantina (November 03); and Condamine-Balonne (December 03). Section 49 of the Water Act 2000 – Public notice about availability of draft WRP – requires the Minister to publish a notice about where the report may be inspected and purchased, and inviting submissions. Summary brochures, and in some instances copies of the draft Plans are mailed to affected persons. Where relevant, fact sheets are sent to all persons within a catchment that has a declared overland flow moratorium. Over the coming months, a number of workshops will be held covering an explanation of the issues in the above draft Plans, how to make a submission, etc. These workshops are targeted at interest groups. Resource Operations Plans In May 2003, the Burnett Basin ROP was completed (this was addressed in Queensland's response to NCC regarding questions raised in June 2003) and in January 2004, the Fitzroy Basin ROP was completed. Prior to finalisation of the Fitzroy ROP, a series of public meetings were held with stakeholders and consultation was held with industry bodies. A number of public submissions were received on the draft ROP which resulted in modifications to the WRP and ROP. All reports are available on the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy web site at: www.nrm.qld.gov.au/wrp Metering An existing interim policy on Metering Water Extractions was produced in 2002 (www.nrm.qld.gov.au/water/reform) to provide a framework for metering in rural Queensland and aims to articulate the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy position on a number of metering issues such as installation and maintenance, standards, responsibility for costs, when meters are required and ownership. The Department is currently developing a pamphlet Talking Metering and associated consultation process to engage stakeholders in the near future. Page 88 Queensland Government Eighth Annual Report to the National Competition Council 10.6.3 Water Trading Arrangements A series of information brochures has been produced as part of a Water Trading Information Kit to explain water trading in Queensland. The topics covered include: Water Trading: an Overview… an introduction to water markets in Queensland Trading Water Allocations… the processes involved in the permanent trading of water allocations Trading Interim Water Allocations… the processes involved in trading interim water allocations between landholders Seasonal Water Assignments…an outline of the market in the seasonal assignment of water available under an existing water entitlement Water Allocations and Land Valuations… the implications of separating water from land on the valuation of land Separating Water from Land… (a guide for financiers) on the conversion of water licences and interim water allocations to water allocations These brochures may be accessed on the Departmental of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy web site at www.nrm.qld.gov.au/water/trading. During December 2003, workshops were held in Rockhampton and Emerald to precede the release of the Fitzroy ROP. The topics covered included: Water Trading in Queensland. This provided practical information about the processes involved in permanently trading water. Water Trading in Practice – the Conveyancing Aspects These sessions were targeted at water entitlement holders, lawyers, accountants, solicitors and financial institutions. 10.6.4 New rural water infrastructure It is intended that during 2004, public consultation will occur regarding water pricing principles for the Burnett Water Infrastructure Project to inform the public about how the prices may be established. 10.6.5 General The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy also oversees a standing group, known as the Water Reform Implementation Group, which consists of representatives from all key stakeholder groups affected by or interested in water reform projects. The group meets regularly to be provided information on developments in water reform and to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to express their opinions on water reform issues. - End - Page 89 Attachment 1 --New Legislation: Queensland 2003 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Arts Corrective Services Education Education Education Arts Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Act 2003 Education (General Provisions) Amendment Act 2003 Education and Other Legislation (Student Protection) Amendment Act 2003 Grammar Schools and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? No No No No Yes – section 6 of the GSA was found to be anticompetitive and required amendment. A PBT was conducted on the draft 2003 Bill. While provisions were found to be anticompetitive it was determined that these provisions were justified to achieve the objectives of the Act. No. The Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 1993 was subject to a PBT in 2000 which found a number of anticompetitive provisions, but the primary purpose of the 2003 amendments were not to address those issues No No No. No No Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? Yes No. The amendments relate only to purely operational corrections matters. Yes Yes N/A Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? Np N/A No No N/A Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? No N/A N/A N/A N/A Education Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2003 Yes Yes A PBT was conducted on the draft 2003 Bill. While provisions were found to be anticompetitive it was determined that these provisions were justified to achieve the objectives of the Act. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Education Education Employment and Training Environmental Protection Agency EPA Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 Youth Participation in Education and Training Act 2003 Training Reform Act 2003 Beach Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Environmental Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Yes Yes Yes. No. The Act made amendments to validate existing developments and enforce the intent of existing provisions No. The Act made amendments of an administrative nature, clarified scope of existing provisions and introduced third party standing. Yes No. The amendment was to permit dredging and disposal of spoil for a development adjacent to a Marine Park No. The amendments were of a minor administrative nature only. No No No potential restrictions were identified (confirmed by Queensland Treasury). N/A N/A EPA EPA EPA Environmental Protection Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Marine Parks Amendment Act 2003 Queensland Heritage and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 1 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Emergency Services Disaster Management Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? No Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? Yes Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? The proposal to protect the SES name was identified as potentially raising a NCP issue. However, in the context of the proposed disaster management legislation, it is contended that protection of the name is justified. In recent years instances have arisen where bodies have implied an association with the SES through the unauthorised use of the SES or a similar name in Queensland. The inclusion of the proposed provision would act as a deterrent to those who may otherwise seek to misuse the name, and enable DES to prosecute those who breach the provision. The restriction on the use of the SES name would deter impersonation of SES officers. It is proposed that the powers exercisable by an authorised SES officer would include entry to places and vehicles, removing articles, and destroying or damaging property where necessary. In light of the nature of these powers, it is in the public interest to prevent impersonation of SES officers and misuse of these powers. N/A NO Families Health Health Health Health Housing Housing Housing Industrial Relations Industrial Rel Industrial Rel Child Protection (International Measures) Act 2003 Health and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Health Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Public Health (Infection Control for Personal Appearance Services) Act 2003 Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2003 Housing Act 2003 Queensland Building Services Authority and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Residential Tenancies and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003: Amendments to ― (a) Residential Tenancies Act 1994 (b) Architects Act 2002 (c) Qld Building Services Authority Act 1991 Pastoral Workers’ Accommodation Amendment Act 2003 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Other Acts Amendment Act 2003 No NO YES/YES YES/YES No No No (a) No (b) No (c) Yes/Yes No Yes No No – not relevant to intent of legislation YES Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? No -- However, similarities may be drawn from the PBT undertaken recently for the Ambulance Service Act 1991. The Ambulance Service Act provides for penalties for breaches of its equivalent provision, for which a PBT was undertaken in 2002 and publicly released in 2003.The PBT Report noted that there was a benefit to the public of retaining restrictions on the use of the terms ‗ambulance‘ and ‗ambulance service‘. This benefit arises from the signal these terms provide for quality in an imperfect market. If the restriction on the term ‗SES‘ was removed from the Disaster Management Act, any person, regardless of skills and experience, could represent themselves as being associated with the SES. The PBT on the Ambulance Service Act 1991 acknowledged that the importance of a signal increases with the urgency of services provided and thus the restriction should be retained. This applies similarly to SES services. N/A N/A No. Legislation not related to market Yes Yes (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A No No (a) No (b) No (c) N/A No N/A Occupational licensing; Restraint of Trade; Barrier to Entry N/A N/A (a) N/A (b) N/A (c) N/A N/A PBT - Yes PBT undertaken, restrictions found to be in public interest. Attachment 1 – Page 2 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Innovation & Info. Economy I&IE Electricity and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Gas Supply Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? Yes/Yes Although the primary purpose of the legislation did not derive from an NCP Review of existing legislation, one of the main purposes of the Gas Supply Act 2003 was to implement the franchising and licensing principles outlined in the Natural Gas Pipelines Access Agreement Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? N/A Yes Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? N/A Yes – a number of restrictions were identified, including provisions providing for full retail contestability not to proceed at this stage. Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? n/A An NCP Review of the proposed legislation as a ehole was undertaken in 2003. In a ddition , the Queensland Government engaged independent consultants, McLennan Magasanik Associates Pty Ltd, to conduct a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) on the introduction of FRC in the Queensland reticulated gas market. This analysis concluded that the costs of introducing Gas FRC to the Queensland reticulated gas market would significantly outweigh the benefits, with the estimated marketing and system costs of $115M far exceeding the estimated efficiency benefits of just $31 million. The study was released for public consultation and no material issues were raised in relation to the report or its findings. N/A N/A I&IE I&IE Indy Car Grand Prix and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Act 2003 No No Yes No -- the Amendment Act addressed any residual uncertainties which may potentially have existed in relation to the powers of the Stadium Redevelopment Authority to enter into an agreement on commercial terms for the transfer of the stadium to the Major Sports Facilities Authority. Yes No cpmpetition issues identified (confirmed by Queensland Treasury) N/A I&IE Sports Drug Testing Act 2003 No The Act maintains the status quo, with the Australian Sports Drug Agency (ASDA) being the only body legally capable of conducting drug testing of National and State athletes. This was identified by SRQ as a potential restriction of competition. However, SRQ considered that any restriction to competition is outweighed by the benefits of ASDA conducting testing under a consistent National approach. Other advantages of ASDA conducting tests included: ASDA carries out the education and testing of National level athletes and is contracted by Queensland, as well as other States and Territories to test State level athletes. The procedures for testing Queensland athletes A desk top public benefit test was undertaken by SRQ and submitted to Queensland Treasury for consideration. Queensland Treasury supported the analysis that any restriction to competition, resulting from conferral of powers solely on ASDA is outweighed by the benefits of ASDA conducting testing under the consistent National approach. Attachment 1 – Page 3 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? are well established and understood amongst the sporting industry. ASDA delivers education as well as conducting testing. Education is the keystone of the deterrence strategy employed at both National and State levels. The Commonwealth Act has well established procedures to ensure the safety and security of samples. Whilst other agencies/bodies may have the capacity to carry out drug testing, for example, hospitals or workplaces, no other agency has the capacity to deliver the chain of custody provided by ASDA, ensuring the safety and security of samples. ASDA can deliver its services at a moderate cost. Given the high cost of laboratory analysis, this is important for containing the costs of testing. Testing by ASDA is administratively simpler to implement. All other mainland Australian States have introduced legislation that confers powers on ASDA to conduct drug testing of their State level athletes. No No No No No No No No No No Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? Innovation & Info. Economy (cont.) Justice & A-G JAG JAG JAG JAG JAG JAG JAG JAG JAG Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003 Civil Liability Act 2003 Commonwealth Powers (De Facto Relationships) Act 2003 Coroners Act 2003 Cremations Act 2003 Criminal Code (Palliative Care) Amendment Act 2003 Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 Financial Services Reform (Consequential Amendments) Act 2003 Guardianship and Administration and Other Acts Amendment Act 2003 No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Attachment 1 – Page 4 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Justice & A-G (cont.) Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? No Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? Yes Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? Yes -- An amendment gives legislative effect to a Queensland Law Society rule capping legal fees in personal injuries matters so that a solicitor may not charge more than half of the amount ultimately payable to the client, without the approval of the Council of the Society. The objective of the amendment is to ensure solicitors acting in speculative personal injuries matters cannot claim a disproportionate amount of the award or settlement as professional fees. Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? Yes/Yes -- It was concluded that the amendment strikes a balance between the need of clients to be treated fairly and practitioners to be reasonably remunerated. JAG Legal Profession Act 2003 JAG JAG Local Government Local Govt Local Govt Local Govt Local Govt Natural Resources & Mines Magistrates Amendment Act 2003 Sexual Offences (Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2003 Building Amendment Act 2003 Integrated Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Local Government (Robina Central Planning Agreement) Amendment Act 2003 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Local Government Legislation Amend. Act 2003 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 Yes --The legislation was consistent with the Government’s decisions on the review, as previously outlined to the NCC. It is based substantially on relevant parts of the national model laws for the regulation of the legal profession being developed through the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral which are to be subject to a national NCP gate-keeping review, coordinated by NSW. No No NO NO NO NO NO No Yes Yes NO. Amendments relate to residential swimming pool safety requirements. YES YES YES YES No. The legislation relates to the protection and management of Aboriginal cultural heritage values by the traditional owners of that cultural heritage. There is no restriction on competition because no one else has the traditional knowledge associated with the cultural heritage values. The legislation also had to be drafted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 N/A No No N/A NO NO NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NR&M Irvinebank State Treatment Works Repeal Act 2003 No N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 5 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Natural Resources & Mines (cont.) NR&M Land Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? No - in terms of the legislative amendment to the Mineral Resources Act 1989. Mineral Resources and Another Act Amendment Act 2003 No Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? No -- The nature of the legislative amendment to the Mineral Resources Act 1989 was to cancel certain mining leases. Restriction on competition was not an issue in this instance. Yes Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? N/A Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? N/A Yes – the Act established an interim regime for the regulation of coal seam gas exploration and production. No -- consideration of competition issues in relation to this legislation was not undertaken on the basis that a PBT is being undertaken in relation to the proposed Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, which will give effect to the final coal seam gas regime. The report of that PBT will be included with the Authority to Introduce for the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Bill.‖ N/A N/A N/A NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Survey and Mapping Infrastructure Act 2003 Surveyors Act 2003 Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 No No Yes and Yes No Yes Yes N/A No. The legislation relates to the protection and management of Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage values by the traditional owners of that cultural heritage. There is no restriction on competition because no one else has the traditional knowledge associated with the cultural heritage values. The legislation also had to be drafted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 No. The amendments were made to allow the chief executive to take into account the value of intangible improvements in the making of a valuation where an application is made on an approved form. There were no NCP issued identified in the amendments. Yes No potential restrictions on competition. The need for amendments were identified as a result of ongoing implementation of the Water Act and also to facilitate proposed new water infrastructure in the Burnett Basin. No No N/A N/A NR&M Valuation of Land Amendment Act 2003 No N/A N/A NR&M NR&M Vegetation (Application for Clearing) Act 2003 Water and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 No No No N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 6 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Police Australian Crime Commission (Queensland) Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? No Police Police Police Police Police Police Premiers Premiers Premiers Premiers Primary Industries Chemical, Biological and Radiological Emergency Powers Amendment Act 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities (Forensic Procedures) Amendment Act 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Police Service Administration (Alcohol and Drug Testing) Amendment Act 2003 Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Act 2003 Weapons and Another Act Amendment Act 2003 Governors (Salary and Pensions) Act 2003 Parliament of Queensland Amendment Act (No. 2) 2003 Parliament of Queensland Amendment Act 2003 South Bank Corporation and Other Acts Amendment Act 2003 Primary Industries and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 No No No No No No No No No No No Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? No -- None of the Amendments Acts had the potential to restrict competition because none of the Amendment Acts created an advantage or disadvantage to business competitors (e.g. the Weapons (Handguns and Trafficking) Amendment Act 2003 implemented a COAG agreement requiring the legislative removal of the high-powered handgun market Australia wide). No (See Above) No (See Above) No (See Above) No (See Above) No (See Above) No (See Above) No, amendments relate to the administration of executive government and do not place any restrictions on competition No, amendments relate to the administration of executive government and do not place any restrictions on competition No, amendments relate to the administration of executive government and do not place any restrictions on competition Yes Yes Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? N/A Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No potential restrictions on competition were identified No, but one of the amendments was to delete previously ―sunsetted‖ (expired) restrictions on competition in the Grain Industry Restructuring Act 1991 (ie the ―vesting‖ of certain grains), thereby completing the process of NCP reform of that Act. Furthermore, amendments to the Fisheries Act included in the PILA Act removed some potential restrictions on integrated development activities. The previously separate approval requirements for fishways were removed and multiple approvals for fisheries habitat and aquaculture development were amalgamated into a single approvals process under the N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A Attachment 1 – Page 7 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? Integrated Planing Act. This amalgamation also streamlined approvals for all fisheries development across State and local government and also across Commonwealth and State Governments for aquaculture. The new Queensland approach forms the statutory basis for the accreditation of Queensland law and associated processes by the C‘wealth under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulation. No N/A Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? Prim. Ind. State Development Tourism, Racing & Fair Trading TRFT TRFT TRFT TRFT TRFT TRFT Sugar Industry and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 2003 Body Corporate and Community Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 Liquor Amendment Act 2003 Manufactured Homes (Residential Parks) Act 2003 Motor Vehicles Securities and Other Acts Amendment Act 2003 Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2003 Tourism Services Act 2003 No No Yes No – the Act ensures Qld’s continued participation in the TTMRA which is designed to increase the competitiveness of the Australia/New Zealand market Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A No No No Yes /Yes No Yes/Yes. Yes/Yes -- Result of NCP review of new legislative proposals for regulation of proposed regulation of Inbound Tour Operators and Tour Guides in Queensland No YES/YES-- Legislation imposes revised minimum accreditation and safety requirements to take account of the recommendations of the inquiry into the Glenbrook (NSW) rail disaster and to clarify the roles of the Queensland Competition and Safety regulators No No No N/A No N/A Yes Registration requirements & conduct restrictions (Information disclosure; records; & identification under proposed Code of Conduct No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes TRFT Transport Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003 Transport Infrastructure and Another Act Amendment Act 2003 Yes N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 8 Department (Departmental titles are shown as at the time the legislation was enacted) Legislation Title Transport (cont.) Transport Operations (Road Use Management) and Another Act Amendment Act 2003 Q1: Was the primary purpose of the legislation or legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation? If so, were the legislation or amendments consistent with the recommendations of the review? (a) Part 1 Amendment of Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 - NO (b) Schedule Amendment of State Transport (People Movers) Act 1989 - YES No No No No Np No No No Q2: If the proposed legislation or amendments were not intended to implement the recommendations of an NCP Review of existing legislation, were they examined for potential restrictions on competition? If not, why? (a) NO -- Corrective and Administrative in nature (b) N/A No – appropriation bill No – appropriation bill No – appropriation bill No – appropriation bill No – Act established Community Ambulance scheme No – administrative amendments No – administrative amendments Yes Q3: If the answer to Question 2 was ‘yes’, were any potential restrictions on competition identified? If so, what was the nature of each restriction? (a) NO Q4: If potential restrictions on competition were identified, was a Public Benefit Test undertaken or a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared? If so, were the restrictions found to be in the public interest? (a) NA (b) NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes ─ Creation of tradable Gaming Machine Authorities. Creation of a tender sale process for sale of the authorities. Restrictions on the number of Authorities that may be sold (per year and per sale). Minimum sale restrictions. Geographical restrictions on the sale process. N/A N/A N/A No (b) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes ─ A Public Benefit Test dated 6 May 2003 concluded that the restrictions were in the public interest. Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Appropriation (Parliament) Act (No. 2) 2003 Appropriation (Parliament) Act 2003 Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2003 Appropriation Act 2003 Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003 Financial Administration and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 First Home Owner Grant Amendment Act 2003 Gaming Machine and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Land Tax Amendment Act 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Act 2003 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Act 2003 TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Amendment Act 2003 No No No No No – administrative amendments No – administrative amendments No. The Act amended existing legislation to accommodate the Commonwealth‘s Family Law Act amendments. Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 9 Queensland 2003: New Subordinate Legislation and Amendments to Existing Subordinate Legislation [Excluding proclamations commencing certain or remaining provisions] Department ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP ATSIP Corrective Services Corr. Services Corr. Services Education Education Emergency Services Emer. Services Legislation Title Community Services (Aborigines) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Community Services (Aborigines) Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Community Services (Aborigines) Amendment Reg (No. 3) 2003 Community Services (Aborigines) Amendment Reg (No. 4) 2003 Community Services (Aborigines— Dissolution of Palm Island Aboriginal Council) Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Community Services (Torres Strait) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Community Services Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Community Services Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Community Services Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Corrective Services Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Education (General Provisions) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Grammar Schools Regulation 2003 Ambulance Service Amendment and Repeal Reg (No. 1) 2003 Ambulance Service Regulation 2003 Empowering Act Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984; Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984; Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984; Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984 Corrective Services Act 2000 Corrective Services Act 2000 Corrective Services Act 2000 Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 Grammar Schools Act 1975 Ambulance Service Act 1991 Q1: As per table above No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes – Provisions considered in conjunction with PBT of principal Act No Q2: As per table above No – formulation of Aboriginal Community Groups No – formulation of Aboriginal Community Groups No – formulation of Aboriginal Community Groups No – statutory procedural matter relating to internal indigenous community governance No – statutory procedural matter relating to internal indigenous community governance No – formulation of Aboriginal Community Groups No – amendment relating to the formulation of Aboriginal Community Groups No – amendments relating to local government elections No – amendments relating to local government elections No. The amendments relate only to purely operational corrections matters. No. The amendments relate only to purely operational corrections matters. No. The amendments relate only to purely operational corrections matters. Yes N/A Yes Q3: As per table above No No No No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A No Restrictions Found Q4: As per table above No No No No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A No - Provisions considered in conjunction with PBT of principal Act N/A A PBT was undertaken for the Ambulance Service Act 1991. No restrictions were found in relation to this Regulation. A PBT was undertaken for the Ambulance Service Act 1991. No restrictions were found in relation to this Regulation Ambulance Service Act 1991 No Yes No Restrictions Found Emer. Services Fire Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Building Act 1975; Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990 No Yes No Restrictions Found Attachment 1 – Page 10 Department Environmental Protection Agency EPA EPA EPA EPA Legislation Title Coastal Protection and Management (Coastal Management Districts) Reg 2003 Coastal Protection and Management Legislation Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Coastal Protection and Management Legislation Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Coastal Protection and Management Regulation 2003 Environmental Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Empowering Act Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 Q1: As per table above No No No Yes - regulation developed to support NCP reviewed legislation No Q2: As per table above No. The legislation concerned the establishment of a Coastal Management District only No. The legislation concerned the establishment of a Coastal Management District only No. The legislation concerned the establishment of a Coastal Management District only N/A No. The amendment concerned annual indexation of various fees Q3: As per table above N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Q4: As per table above N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA Building Act 1975; Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 Forestry Act 1959; Marine Parks Act 1982; Nature Conservation Act 1992; Queensland Heritage Act 1992; Recreation Areas Management Act 1988 Environmental Protection Amendment Environmental Protection Act 1994 Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Environmental Protection Policies Amendment Policy (No. 1) 2003 Forestry (State Forests) and Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Forestry (State Forests) Amendment Regulation (No1) 2003 Forestry (State Forests) Amendment Regulation (No2) 2003 Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No1) 2003 Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Amendment Zoning Plan (No1) 2003 Nature Conservation (Forest Reserves) and Forestry (State Forests) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Nature Conservation (Macropod Harvest Period) Notice 2003 Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Environmental Protection Act 1994 Forestry Act 1959; Nature Conservation Act 1992 Forestry Act 1959 Forestry Act 1959 Forestry Act 1959; Nature Conservation Act 1992 Marine Parks Act 1982 No No No No No No No. No. The amendment delayed the commencement of an item of Schedule 1 of the Regulation Yes No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries Yes. N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EPA Forestry Act 1959; Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 No No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries Minor restrictions on competition were RIS and PBT prepared. (Minor identified. restrictions on activity of charter operators determined to be in the public interest.) N/A N/A EPA EPA EPA EPA No No No No No. The Notice facilitated the taking of N/A wildlife. No, the amendments were to N/A protected area boundaries No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 11 Department Environmental Protection Agency (cont.) EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA Families Legislation Title Empowering Act Q1: As per table above No No No No No. No No No No Q2: As per table above Yes No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries Yes Yes Yes. No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries No, the amendments were to protected area boundaries No. The amendments were administrative only. No. The amendments concerned increasing the penalties for infringements. Yes. As part of a comprehensive review of the Child Care Act 1991 and the preparation of the new Child Care Act 2002, a PBT in respect of the then proposed legislation was undertaken, ie the draft Child Care Bill and Regulation. The new legislation commenced in September 2003 and reflects the outcomes of the PBT and public consultation process. NO – not relevant to intent of regulation NO – not relevant to intent of regulation NO – not relevant to intent of regulation NO – not relevant to intent of regulation Q3: As per table above Q4: As per table above Nature Conservation (Protected Plants Nature Conservation Act 1992 Harvest Period) Notice 2003 Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Queensland Heritage Regulation 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No1) 2003 Child Care Regulation 2003 Forestry Act 1959; Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Queensland Heritage Act 1992 Forestry Act 1959 Yes - Phase out of harvesting licences No. Original legislation required a does not allow for any new licensees. phase out of harvesting licences. N/A No No restrictions were identified No major restrictions on competition were identified. N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes. The legislative review, as it related to NCP, examined restrictions in the legislation regarding the licensing requirements and associated costs and the requirement to employ qualified staff. The impacts of regulating different service types within the child care sector, that have not previously been regulated were also examined. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A RIS and PBT prepared. Restrictions found to be in the public interest. N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes. Following extensive consultation with the sector, a RIS and PBT were prepared and made available for feedback. The results of both the RIS and the PBT formed the Competition Impact Statement (CIS) which documented the impact of the new legislation on competition and the potential areas of restriction to competition. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest. N/A N/A Building Act 1975; Child Care Act No 2002; Education (Accreditation of NonState Schools) Act 2001; Health Act 1937; Integrated Planning Act 1997 Families Families Child Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Child Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Domestic and Family Violence Protection Regulation 2003 Juvenile Justice Regulation 2003 Child Protection Act 1999 Child Protection Act 1999 NO NO Families Families Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 Juvenile Justice Act 1992 NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 12 Department Health Health Health Health Health Legislation Title Health (Drugs and Poisons) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Health (Drugs and Poisons) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Health Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Empowering Act Health Act 1937 Health Act 1937 Health Act 1937 Health Act 1937 Q1: As per table above NO NO NO NO NO Q2: As per table above YES YES No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities YES No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities Q3: As per table above NO NO Q4: As per table above Health Legislation Amendment and Repeal Regulation (No.1) 2003 NO Health Health Legislation Amendment Regulation Food Act 1981; Health Act 1937; Health (No. 1) 2003 Services Act 1991; Private Health Facilities Act 1999; Radiation Safety Act 1999 Dental Practitioners Registration Act 2001; Health Practitioner Legislation Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Registration Act 2001; Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001; Medical Radiation Technologists Registration Act 2001; Speech Pathologists Registration Act 2001 NO Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Health Services Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Health Services Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Hospitals Foundations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Medical Practitioners Registration Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Medical Radiation Technologists Registration Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Pest Management Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Pest Management Regulation 2003 Private Health Facilities (Standards) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2003 Private Health Facilities Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Public Health(Infection Control for Personal Appearance Services) Regulation 2003 Public Health(Infection Control for Personal Appearance Services) (Postponement) Regulation 2003 Radiation Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Regulation 2003 Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act 1998 Health Practitioners (Special Events Exemption) Act 1998 Health Services Act 1991 Health Services Act 1991 Hospitals Foundations Act 1982 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001 Medical Radiation Technologists Registration Act 2001 Pest Management Act 2001 Pest Management Act 2001 Private Health Facilities Act 1999 Private Health Facilities Act 1999 Public Health(Infection Control for Personal Appearance Services) Act 2003 Public Health(Infection Control for Personal Appearance Services) Act 2003 Radiation Safety Act 1999 Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2003 No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities YES YES No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislation unrelated to business activities No, legislation unrelated to business activities No, legislative amendments unrelated to business activities No, legislation unrelated to business activities NO NO Attachment 1 – Page 13 Department Housing Housing Housing Housing Housing Legislation Title Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Queensland Building Services Authority Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Queensland Building Services Authority Regulation 2003 Empowering Act Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991 Q1: As per table above No No No No No Q2: As per table above Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Q3: As per table above No No No No Q4: As per table above N/A N/A N/A N/A Housing Innovation & Info. Economy IIESRQ IIESRQ IIESRQ IIESRQ IIESRQ IIESRQ Residential Tenancies Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Gas Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Gas Supply Regulation 2003 Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Regulation 2003 Major Sports Facilities Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Residential Tenancies Act 1994 Electricity Act 1994 Electricity Act 1994 Electricity Act 1994 Gas (Residual Provisions) Act 1965 Gas Supply Act 2003 Gold Coast Motor Racing Events Act 1990 Major Sport Facilities Act 2001 No Yes Yes. Participants in building industry Yes. NCP review supported required to be licensed adoption of more flexible and focused technical requirements for licensing and to streamline licence categories No N/A No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No N/a N/a N/A IIESRQ Industrial Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Major Sports Facilities Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Electrical Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Electrical Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2003 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Amendment Rule (No. 2) 2003 Industrial Relations Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Industrial Relations Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Regulation 2003 Major Sport Facilities Act 2001 Electrical Safety Act 2002 Electrical Safety Act 2002 Industrial Relations Act 1999 Industrial Relations Act 1999 Industrial Relations Act 1999 Industrial Relations Act 1999 Pastoral Workers' Accommodation Act 1980; and Other Acts No YES NO NO NO NO NO NO No examination was required as the regulation: (a) declared Suncorp Stadium to be a ―major sports facility‖; and (b) expired Part 5 of the Major Sports Facilities Act 2001. Part 5 of the Act contained the provisions relating to the role, functions and powers of the SRA. Once Suncorp Stadium transferred to the MSFA the SRA ceased to have a role. No anti-competitive consequences will arise from the Regulation. No examination was required as the regulation declared Willows Sports Complex, incorporating Dairy Farmers Stadium to be a ―major sports facility‖. No anti-competitive consequences will arise from the Regulation. N/A NO N/A NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 14 Department Industrial Relations (cont.) Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Ind. Relations Justice & AttorneyGeneral Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Legislation Title Private Employment Agents (Postponement of Expiry) Reg 2003 Workers‘ Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2003 Workplace Health and Safety (Advisory Standards) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety (Diving) Ministerial Notice 2003 Workplace Health and Safety (Industry Codes of Practice) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety (Industry Codes of Practice) Amendment Notice (No. 2) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety (Miscellaneous) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Workplace Health and Safety Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Civil Liability Regulation 2003 Coroners Regulation 2003 Cremations Regulation 2003 Criminal Practice Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2003 Discrimination Law (Marital Status) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Discrimination Law (Sex) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Drugs Misuse Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003. Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Guardianship and Administration Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Guardianship and Administration Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Empowering Act Private Employment Agents Act 1983 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Electrical Safety Act 2002; Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 Civil Liability Act 2003 Coroners Act 2003 Cremations Act 2003 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 Aboriginal Land Act 1991; and other Acts Q1: As per table above NO YES Q2: As per table above YES N/A Q3: As per table above NO N/A Q4: As per table above N/A PBT - YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO No No No No No NO, urgency under s42C of Act NO, n/a NO, n/a NO, n/a NO, n/a NO, n/a NO, n/a NO, n/a Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a No No No No No No No No No No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Adoption of Children Act 1964; Registration No of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962 Drugs Misuse Act 1986 No Drug Rehabilitation (Court Diversion) Act 2000 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 No No No Attachment 1 – Page 15 Department Justice & AttorneyGeneral (cont.) Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Justice & A-G Legislation Title Justice Legislation (Variation of Costs and Fees) Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Justice Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Magistrates Regulation 2003 Penalties and Sentences Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Personal Injuries Proceedings Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Property Law Regulation 2003 Recording of Evidence Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 7) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 8) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 9) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 10) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 11) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Amendment Regulation (No. 12) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Uniform Civil Procedure Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2003 Empowering Act Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973; Electoral Act 1992; Evidence Act 1977; Freedom of Information Act 1992; and Other Acts Justices Act 1886; Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 1962; Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973 Magistrates Act 1991 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 Property Law Act 1974 Recording of Evidence Act 1962 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 Food Production (Safety) Act 2000; State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 Q1: As per table above No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Q2: As per table above Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Q3: As per table above No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Q4: As per table above Attachment 1 – Page 16 Department Local Government & Planning Local Govt. Legislation Title Building Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Building Regulation 2003 Empowering Act Building Act 1975; Integrated Planning Act 1997; State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 Building Act 1975 Q1: As per table above YES. YES. NO Q2: As per table above N/A NO. Rewrite of existing Regulation in relation to fee increases and pool fence exemptions for tourist resort complexes. YES YES NO. Minor consequential amendments as a result of amendments to Building Act 1975 and the Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002. NO. Provisions relate to the setting of court fees. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Q3: As per table above N/A N/A Q4: As per table above N/A N/A Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. City of Brisbane Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 City of Brisbane Act 1924 Integrated Planning Act 1997 Integrated Planning Act 1997 NO NO NO NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Local Govt. Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Local Government (Implementation of Reviewable Local Government Matters) Regulation 2003 Local Government (Maroochy and Noosa) Regulation 2003 Local Government Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Local Government Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Local Government Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Local Government Finance Amendment Standard (No. 1) 2003 Local Government Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Local Government Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Plumbing and Drainage (Postponement) Regulation 2003 Plumbing and Drainage Regulation 2003 Standard Building Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Standard Plumbing and Drainage Regulation 2003 Standard Sewerage and Water Supply Legislation Amendment Law (No. 1) 2003 Integrated Planning Act 1997 Integrated Planning Act 1997 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Local Government Act 1993 Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 Building Act 1975 Building Act 1975; Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002 Sewerage and Water Supply Act 1949 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. N/A NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 17 Department Natural Resources & Mines Legislation Title Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Empowering Act Aboriginal Land Act 1991 Q1: As per table above No Q2: As per table above Q3: As per table above Q4: As per table above N/A NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Acquisition of Land Regulation 2003 Explosives Regulation 2003 Aboriginal Land Act 1991 Aboriginal Land Act 1991 Acquisition of Land Act 1967 Explosives Act 1999 No No No No No. This legislation relates to the N/A making of land available for grant to indigenous persons as contemplated by the Aboriginal Land Act 1991. This special State land rights legislation makes special measures for the adequate and appropriate recognition of the interests and responsibilities indigenous persons have in relation to land and thereby to foster the capacity for selfdevelopment, and self-reliance and cultural integrity of indigenous persons. As Above N/A As Above Yes Yes N/A No Yes. Restrictions provided through: national uniformity; increasing safety and training requirements in fireworks industry ( industry working with Explosives Inspectorate to ensure high standard of safety in Queensland); and fees for fireworks licences increasing significantly to offset additional resources provided by Explosives Inspectorate post Bray Park. N/A N/A N/A Business Regulation Reform Unit confirmed that no RIS required due to nature of regulations, which were in the public interest. Public submissions called for in early consultation stage addressed during development of regulations. Explosives legislation removed from scope of legislation review schedule. NR&M Foreign Ownership of Land Register Regulation 2003 Foreign Ownership of Land Register Act 1988 No NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) (Postponement) Regulation 2003 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Reg 2003 Mineral Resources Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Mineral Resources Regulation 2003 Natural Resources and Mines Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Natural Resources Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 Mineral Resources Act 1989 Mineral Resources Act 1989 Acquisition of Land Act 1967; and Other Acts Land Act 1994; Vegetation Management Act 1999 No No N/A No No No No. The amendments comprise a schedule of fees to search the register. The principle Act requires the State maintain a register of information collected under the Act. There is no restriction on competition. N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Based on the information provided by NRM to BRRU, BRRU agreed no RIS was required. The revenue raised from searches in the register in the 2002/3 amounted to $16,384 N/A Yes – restrictions on the keeping of domestic rabbits were reviewed N/A No No No N/A Yes/Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 18 Department Natural Res. & Mines (cont.) NR&M NR&M NR&M Legislation Title Petroleum (Entry Permission—Chevron Services Australia Pty Ltd) Notice 2003 Petroleum (Entry Permission—Oil Company of Australia (Moura) Transmission Pty Limited) Notice 2003 Petroleum (Entry Permission—RLMS Pty Ltd) Notice 2003 Valuation of Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Empowering Act Petroleum Act 1923 Petroleum Act 1923 Petroleum Act 1923 Valuation of Land Act 1944 Q1: As per table above N/A N/A N/A No Q2: As per table above N/A N/A N/A Q3: As per table above N/A N/A N/A Q4: As per table above N/A N/A N/A No restrictions on competition were identified. NR&M Valuation of Land Regulation 2003 Valuation of Land Act 1994 No NR&M Valuers Registration Regulation 2003 Valuers Registration Act 1992 No NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M NR&M Water (Mary River Water Supply Scheme—Emergency) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2003 Water (Mary River Water Supply Scheme—Emergency) Notice 2003 Water Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Water Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Water Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Water Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Water Resource (Border Rivers) Plan 2003 Water Resource (Moonie) Plan 2003 Water Resource (Warrego, Paroo, Bulloo and Nebine) Plan 2003 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 Water Act 2000 No No No No The Regulation was required under section 37A (4) of the Valuation of Land Act 1944 to extend the period between the making of Annual valuations of 4 local governments. There were no NCP issues identified in the scan of legislation carried out in the late 1990s. There were no NCP issues with the Regulation since it only affected valuation information supplied by Government. The Valuers Registration Act 1992 and the Regulation were subject to a PBT in 1999 in accordance with the principles of the NCP. The outcome was to maintain registration of valuers in Queensland for at least a further 3 years from 1.5.02, pending a further review of the need for the legislation taking into account the effectiveness of the measures implemented by the amendments to legislation, which commenced 1.5.02 No potential restrictions on N/A competition No potential restrictions on competition No potential restrictions on competitions No potential restrictions on competition No potential restrictions on competition No potential restrictions on competition No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A The RIS process found that remaking the regulation was in the public interest. The RIS process found that, pending the outcome of the next NCP review, remaking the regulation was in the public interest. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 19 Department Police Legislation Title Police Powers and Responsibilities (Rugby World Cup) Reg 2003 Empowering Act Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Q1: As per table above No Q2: As per table above Q3: As per table above Q4: As per table above N/A Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 3) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 4) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 5) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 6) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 7) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 8) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 9) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Reg (No. 10) 2003 Prostitution Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Weapons Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilites Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 Prostitution Act 1999 Weapons Act 1990 No No No No No No No No No No No No All proposed amendments to N/A subordinate legislation must be examined against the obligations contained in Part 5 (Guidelines for Regulatory Impact Statements) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, In particular s. 43 (Preparation of regulatory impact statement). The obligation imposed by s. 43 of the Act does, by implication, require consideration as to whether the proposed subordinate legislation will potentially restrict trade. No Regulatory Impact Statements were prepared for the amendment regulations completed by the Department of Police as the amendment regulations came within the provisions of s.46 (Where is preparation of a regulatory impact statement unnecessary?) of the Act. See Above N/A See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above See Above N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 20 Department Premiers Legislation Title Governors (Salary and Pensions) Regulation 2003 Empowering Act Governors (Salary and Pensions) Act 2003 Q1: As per table above No Q2: As per table above Q3: As per table above Q4: As per table above No Premiers Premiers Premiers South Bank Corporation (Modified South Bank Corporation Act 1989 Building Units and Group Titles) Reg 2003 South Bank Corporation Regulation 2003 South Bank Corporation Act 1989 Statutory Instruments Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Statutory Instruments Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Animal Care and Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Statutory Instruments Act 1992 No No No Premiers Statutory Instruments Act 1992 No Primary Industries Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 No No, the subordinate legislation No relates to the administration of executive government and does not place any restrictions on competition Yes No potential restriction identified. The Regulation was remade due to its imminent expiry. Yes No potential restriction identified. The Regulation was remade due to its imminent expiry No, the subordinate legislation No relates to the expiry of subordinate legislation and does not place any restrictions on competition No, the subordinate legislation No relates to the expiry of subordinate legislation and does not place any restrictions on competition Yes Yes, one of the amendments was to insert new provisions in the Regulation to implement a decision of the Agriculture and Resources Ministerial Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) from August 2000 in regard to layer hen welfare measures, notably for each jurisdiction to underpin a number of essential poultry welfare parameters from the Poultry Code 4th edition as a mandatory code of practice in legislation. This relates to layer hen cage sizes and stocking densities in particular. The prescription of a new mandatory code of practice, although intended to be uniform across all States and Territories, is arguably a ―restriction on competition‖ as that term is defined in the Queensland NCP Legislation Review Policy Statement of July 1996. No No No No No. RIS and PBT not undertaken as the implementation of the new regulatory arrangements for hen welfare is strictly in accord with a decision of the national Ministerial Council (ARMCANZ, as it was, now the Primary Industries Ministerial Council) which will be progressively implemented by all States and Territories. Notably, an adequate transitional period for progressively meeting the cage size, design and stocking densities (ie till 01/01/08) has been allowed. Attachment 1 – Page 21 Department Primary Industries (cont.) Legislation Title Fisheries (Coral Reef Fin Fish) Management Plan 2003 Empowering Act Fisheries Act 1994 Q1: As per table above No Q2: As per table above Yes Q3: As per table above Yes including input controls, max. and min. legal reef fish size limits and boat catch limits for a number of rare and iconic reef fish were applied for the achievement of longterm sustainable use, and equitable access across all fishing sectors. Minimum quota holdings for some coral reef species were introduced as an interim provision that will be phased out in 2 years once the trading of quota stabilises. Similarly, there are interim provisions to specify the form in which coral reef fish are to be landed for quota management purposes. No No Yes including: (a) access controls to commercial fishing activity to address concerns about resource allocation and catch sharing; and (b) input controls (reduction in number of licences) and output controls (setting a TAC) on commercial Spanish mackerel fishers. Minimum quota holding for Spanish mackerel fishers was introduced as an interim provision that will be phased out in 2 years once the trading of quota stabilises. A complementary measure to the Fisheries Management Plan Amendment No.2. No Yes - area closures to restrict all types of fishing in certain defined habitat areas, specifically to protect the endangered Grey Nurse Shark. A complementary measure to the Fisheries Management Plan Amendment No.5. Q4: As per table above Yes. A RIS and PBT were prepared. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest in that they were essential for the long-term sustainable management of the fishery. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 1) Fisheries Act 1994 2003 Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 2) Fisheries Act 1994 2003 Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 3) Fisheries Act 1994 2003 No No No Yes Yes Yes N/a N/a Yes. A RIS and PBT were prepared. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest as they assist in the sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems and maintain appropriate catch sharing arrangements. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 4) Fisheries Act 1994 2003 Fisheries Amendment Regulation (No. 5) Fisheries Act 1994 2003 No No Yes Yes Yes. A RIS and PBT were prepared. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest as the precautionary management approach would aid in the reduction of negative interaction between the sharks and commercial fishing activities. Attachment 1 – Page 22 Department Primary Industries (cont.) Primary Ind. Legislation Title Fisheries Management Plans Amendment Management Plan (No. 1) 2003 Fisheries Management Plans Amendment Management Plan (No. 2) 2003 Empowering Act Fisheries Act 1994 Fisheries Act 1994 Q1: As per table above No No Q2: As per table above Yes Yes Q3: As per table above No Yes including: (a) access controls to commercial fishing activity to address concerns about resource allocation and catch sharing; and (b) input controls directed towards the spanner crab fishery by restricting the amount and type of gear that can be used. No, but NCC previously identified that the minimum quota holding in the Spanner Crab fishery was anticompetitive. These provisions were removed from the Spanner Crab Management Plan by this Amendment Plan. No Yes - area closures to restrict all types of fishing in certain defined habitat areas, specifically to protect the endangered Grey Nurse Shark. Q4: As per table above N/a Yes. A RIS and PBT were prepared. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest as they assist in the sustainability of fishery resources and associated ecosystems and maintain appropriate catch sharing arrangements. Primary Ind. Fisheries Management Plans Amendment Management Plan (No. 3) 2003 Fisheries Act 1994 No Yes Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Fisheries Management Plans Amendment Management Plan (No. 4) 2003 Fisheries Management Plans Amendment Management Plan (No. 5) 2003 Fisheries Act 1994 Fisheries Act 1994 No No Yes Yes Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Forestry (State Forests) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Forestry (State Forests) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 – Forestry provisions only Forestry (State Forests) and Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 – Forestry provisions only Forestry Act 1959 Forestry Act 1959 Forestry Act 1959 Forestry Act 1959 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes. A RIS and PBT were prepared. The restrictions were found to be in the public interest as the precautionary management approach would aid in the reduction of negative interaction between the sharks and commercial fishing activities. N/a N/a N/a N/a Attachment 1 – Page 23 Department Primary Industries (cont.) Legislation Title Plant Protection (Approved Sugarcane Varieties) Declaration 2003 Empowering Act Plant Protection Act 1989 Q1: As per table above No Q2: As per table above Yes Q3: As per table above Yes - requiring an inspector‘s approvals to grow non-approved sugarcane varieties is arguably a NCP restriction. A complementary measure to the Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No3) 2003. Q4: As per table above No. This measure is a companion measure to the Plant Protection Amdt Reg No.3 and continues an existing restriction on varieties of sugarcane that may be grown for disease control purposes, but transfers this capacity from the Sugar Industry Act to the Plant Protection Act to facilitate the administration of the measure following certain changes in industry organisational arrangements. N/a N/a N/a No. This measure was consequential to the Approved Sugarcane Varieties Notice. In effect, the 2 measures simply transfer this existing control from the Sugar Industry Act to the Plant Protection Act. Clearly in the Public Interest for pest control purposes. No. A PBT was not undertaken, however the RIS addressed the impacts on different stakeholders. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Plant Protection (Wheat Streak Mosaic) Notice 2003 Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Plant Protection Act 1989 Plant Protection Act 1989 Plant Protection Act 1989 Plant Protection Act 1989 No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes - requiring an inspector‘s approvals to grow non-approved sugarcane varieties is arguably a NCP restriction. Primary Ind. Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Plant Protection Act 1989 No Yes Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2003 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Plant Protection Act 1989 Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966; Brands Act 1915; Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988; Stock Act 1915; Veterinary Surgeons Act 1936 No No Yes Yes Yes - but only minor in requiring more stringent banana disease thresholds to allow more effective measures to prevent or control and to respond to banana leaf disease infestations. No No N/a N/a Attachment 1 – Page 24 Department Primary Industries (cont.) Legislation Title Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Empowering Act Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966; Agricultural Standards Act 1994, Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Act 1988 Q1: As per table above Yes Q2: As per table above Yes Q3: As per table above A number of the amendments were consequentials flowing from a NCP review of Qld Agvet Chemical Legislation in 2001-02 and from subsequent amendments to the ‗parent‘ Agvet Chemical Acts in 2002. A notable example was the amendment to implement a review recommendation to introduce a license requirement for ground distribution contractors to complement the existing licensing regime for aerial distributors contractors of Ag chemicals. No No Q4: As per table above No. A PBT was not undertaken for the regulation because all of the relevant NCP-related amendments flow from a previous NCP review of the Qld Agvet Acts. On 13 June 2003, Qld Treasury endorsed a DPI proposal to enact the Primary Industries Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 without a PBT on the basis that the proposed amendments were consistent with the NCP review and consistent with the PBT issues addressed in that review. N/a N/a Primary Ind. Primary Ind. Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works Public Works State Development Stock (Cattle Tick) Amendment Notice (No. 1) 2003 Stock (Cattle Tick) Amendment Notice (No. 2) 2003 Architects Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Architects Regulation 2003 Professional Engineers Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Professional Engineers Regulation 2003 State Buildings Protective Security Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 State Development and Public Works Organisation (Gladstone State Development Area) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 State Development and Public Works Organisation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Stock Act 1915 Stock Act 1915 Architects Act 2002 Architects Act 2002 Professional Engineers Act 2002 Professional Engineers Act 2002 State Buildings Protective Security Act 1983 State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 No No Yes Yes No State Development State Development State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 No No No. The regulation was made to establish a State Development Area in Townsville as a specific location for heavy industry. There is no restriction on competition from the establishment of this area. Yes N/A No BRRU advised no RIS required. Public consultation was undertaken on the Townsville State Development Area proposal including the preparation and distribution of an Information Paper. N/A No State Development State Development and Public Works State Development and Public Works Organisation (State Development Areas) Organisation Act 1971 Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 No Yes. Amendments to this Regulation No were minimal. They included changing the body of the document to reflect that the Goodwill Birdge is now an ‗Authorised‘ Work. No. The Regulation was sought to n/a amend the boundaries of the GSDA and does not add restrictions to competition. n/a Attachment 1 – Page 25 Department Tourism, Racing & Fair Trading Tourism, R&FT Legislation Title Empowering Act Q1: As per table above No No Q2: As per table above Yes No. Proof of ID amendments to Act examined for NCP purposes & approved. Regulation amended to prescribe types of ID only. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Q3: As per table above No N/A Q4: As per table above N/A N/A Body Corporate and Community Body Corporate and Community Management Legislation Amendment Management Act 1997 Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Business Names Amendment Regulation Business Names Act 1962 (No. 1) 2003 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Regulation 2003 Consumer Credit (Qld) Amendment (Postponement) Reg 2003 Consumer Credit Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Consumer Credit Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Cooperatives Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Fair Trading (Code of Practice—Fitness Industry) Regulation 2003 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Act 2003 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Amendment Act 2002 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994 Consumer Credit (Queensland) Act 1994 Cooperatives Act 1997 Fair Trading Act 1989 Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes signage cooling-off period termination provisions cap on prepaid fees for periods of greater than 12 months limitation on client liability for fees until fitness centre commences operations contractual disclosure & notice provisions for ongoing agreements Prohibition on particular type of product for safety reasons Prohibition on particular type of product for safety reasons No N/A N/A N/A N/A NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Result of NCP review of proposals Yes for introduction of mandatory code of conduct in the fitness industry in Queensland Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Fair Trading (Pull-Back Action Target Game) Order 2003 Fair Trading (Yo Yo Balls) Order 2003 Fair Trading Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Funeral Benefit Business Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Land Sales Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Fair Trading Act 1989 Fair Trading Act 1989 Fair Trading Act 1989 Funeral Benefit Business Act 1982; Trust Accounts Act 1973 Land Sales Act 1984 Land Sales Act 1984 Land Sales Act 1984 Liquor Act 1992 Liquor Act 1992 No No No Yes Yes No No No NO NO Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes YES YES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 26 Department Tourism, Racing & Fair Trading (cont.) Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Tourism, R&FT Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Legislation Title Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2003 Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 5) 2003 Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2003 Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Amendment Reg (No. 2) 2003 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Racing Regulation 2003 Retirement Villages Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Security Providers Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Tourism Services (Code of Conduct for Inbound Tour Operators) Reg 2003 Tourism Services Regulation 2003 Tourism, Racing and Fair Trading (Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Trade Measurement (Miscellaneous) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Transport Infrastructure (Public Marine Facilities) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Transport Infrastructure (Rail) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Transport Infrastructure (State-controlled Roads) Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Empowering Act Liquor Act 1992 Liquor Act 1992 Liquor Act 1992 Liquor Act 1992 Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986 Motor Vehicles and Boats Securities Act 1986 Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 Racing Act 2002 Retirement Villages Act 1999 Security Providers Act 1993 Tourism Services Act 2003 Tourism Services Act 2003 Associations Incorporation Act 1981; and Other Acts Trade Measurement Act 1990 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 Q1: As per table above NO NO NO NO No No Yes In part Q2: As per table above YES YES YES YES Yes Yes N/A Q3: As per table above NO NO NO NO Yes Yes N/A Q4: As per table above N/A N/A N/A N/A No No N/A No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No NO NO NO NO Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes NO -- Administrative and corrective in nature NO -- Administrative and corrective in nature NO -- Administrative and corrective in nature NO -- Administrative and corrective in nature No -- Administrative and corrective in nature. Increase in Penalties and sanctions No -- CPI Adjustment of fees and Charges No N/A N/A No No NO NO NO NO NO NO N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Transport Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; NO Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Tow Truck Act 1973; Transport NO Infrastructure Act 1994; Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995; Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994; Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994; Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act NO 1995 No -- Administrative and corrective in nature NO N/A Attachment 1 – Page 27 Department Transport (cont.) Transport Legislation Title Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Empowering Act Q1: As per table above Q2: As per table above Q3: As per table above Q4: As per table above N/A The overall objective of TOMPA is to protect Queensland's marine and coastal environment by minimising deliberate and negligent discharges of vessel-sourced pollutants into coastal waters. The legislation specifies requirements to assist in minimising environmental and human health impacts from the discharge of vessel-sourced sewage; introduces workable and practical measures for vessel-sourced sewage management. Failure to address these issues would result in declining health of Queensland waterways. N/A N/A N/A Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act NO 1995 Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act NO 1995 No -- Administrative and corrective NO in nature Yes - Regulatory impact Statement NO completed Transport Transport Transport Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Vehicle Registration) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994; State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999; Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Casino Gaming Amendment Rule (No. 1) Casino Control Act 1982 2003 Community Ambulance Cover Regulation 2003 Duties (Transitional) Regulation 2003 Duties Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Duties Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Financial Administration and Audit Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Financial Management Amendment Standard (No. 1) 2003 Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003 Duties Act 2001 Duties Act 2001 Duties Act 2001 NO NO NO NO Administrative and Corrective in NO nature NO Administrative and Corrective in NO nature NO Administrative and Corrective NO in nature No –amendments to the rules of games having no competition implications. No - Administrative matters only No – Revenue related legislation No – Revenue related legislation No – Revenue related legislation No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 No Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977 No Attachment 1 – Page 28 Department Treasury Legislation Title Gambling Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Empowering Act Q1: As per table above No Q2: As per table above No – minor administration and fee schedule amendments. BRRU advised no RIS was necessary Q3: As per table above Q4: As per table above Treasury Casino Control Act 1982; Charitable and Non-Profit Gaming Act 1999; Gaming Machine Act 1991; Interactive Gambling (Player Protection) Act 1998; Keno Act 1996; Lotteries Act 1997; Wagering Act 1998 Gaming Machine Amendment Regulation Gaming Machine Act 1991 (No. 1) 2003 Gaming Machine Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Government Owned Corporations (Ports) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Government Owned Corporations (Ports) Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Keno Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2003 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Motor Accident Insurance and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Motor Accident Insurance Legislation Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Queensland Competition Authority Amendment Reg (No. 1) 2003 Revenue Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2003 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment of Deed Reg (No. 2) 2003 Gaming Machine Act 1991 No Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury Treasury No No –implementation of the Gaming Machine and other Legislation Amendment Act 2003 that was subject to a PBT. No – minor amendment. No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – minor amendment No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No – Administrative matters only No. The amendment was made to accommodate the Commonwealth‘s Family Law Act, and make some minor technical amendments to the Fund. No. Amendment was made to reflect Qld‘s Discrimination Law Amendment Act 2002, recognising de facto relationships (including same sex relationships). No – Administrative matters only No – minor amendment. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 No Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 No Keno Act 1996 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994; Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 No No No No No Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 No Duties Act 2001; Taxation Administration Act 2001 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 No No No No No Treasury Superannuation (State Public Sector) Amendment of Deed Reg (No. 1) 2003 Superannuation (State Public Sector) Act 1990 No N/A N/A Treasury Treasury Treasury Legislation Amendment Treasury Legislation Amendment Act (No. (Postponement) Regulation 2003 2) 2002 Wagering Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2003 Wagering Act 1998 No No N/A N/A Attachment 1 – Page 29 Attachment 2 - Local Government Competitive Neutrality Reforms Council Business Level of Reform Full Cost Pricing CSOs Rate of Return Complaint Complaints Process Notes Type 1 Businesses - exceeding $18,800,000 or $31,400,000 (combined water/sewerage operations) in annual expenditure Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Gold Coast Gold Coast Ipswich Logan Maroochy Townsville Brisbane Transport Cleansing Water & Sewerage Cleansing (Refuse) Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Commercialisation Full Cost Pricing Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation All All All All All All All All All ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF 11.0% 10.9% 8.5% 28.0% 2.7% 4.5% 8.2% 6.1% 8.5% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No City is experiencing severe drought conditions. Service provision is contracted out. Businesses margin on costs is listed instead. Type 2 Businesses - exceeding $6,200,000 or $9,400,000 (combined water/sewerage operations) in annual expenditure Brisbane Bundaberg Caboolture Cairns Cairns Cairns Caloundra Hervey Bay Ipswich Logan Mackay Maroochy Noosa Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Redcliffe Redland Rockhampton Thuringowa Toowoomba Townsville Redland City Parking Water & Sewerage Water & Sewerage Refuse Water and Sewerage Works Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Cleansing (Refuse) Cleansing (Refuse) Water and Sewerage Cleansing (Refuse) Water and Sewerage Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Redcliffe Works Cleansing (Refuse) Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Water and Sewerage ($704,000) Cleansing (Refuse) Water and Sewerage Commercialisation Full Cost Pricing Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Full Cost Pricing Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Commercialisation Full Cost Pricing Commercialisation Commercialisation All Most All All Most All All All All All All All Most All Most Most All All All Most All All ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF 15.0% 8.4% 8.8% See Notes 4.1% 12.1% 8.9% 2.2% 15.0% 10.3% 7.9% 8.6% 4.8% 14.1% 4.2% Loss 18.4% 13.5% 13.0% 5.0% 5.5% 8.1% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Activity has few assets, contracts with private sector operators include an appropriate rate of return on assets. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 1 Council Business Level of Reform Full Cost Pricing CSOs Rate of Return Complaint Complaints Process Notes Type 3 Businesses - competitive or potentially competitive businesses exceeding $200,000 in annual expenditure Aramac Banana Barcaldine Barcoo Beaudesert Beaudesert Beaudesert Blackall Boonah Booringa Booringa Booringa Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Brisbane Bundaberg Bundaberg Bundaberg Burdekin Burnett Caboolture Roads Roads Roads Roads Building Services Roads Sports and Recreation Roads Private Works Great Artesian Spa Maranoa Retirement Village Roads Brisbane Entertainment Centre Building Certification Cemeteries and Crematoria City Assets City Design City Fleet City Hall Venues City Pools External Road Golf Courses QEII Sports Complex Sleeman Sports Complex Building Services Roads Theatre Workshop Caravan Parks Caravan Parks Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) All Most Not achieving FCR N/A Many N/A Many N/A All N/A All All All N/A All All All All All All All All All All Many N/A Many All All Most ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF 10.6% 4.4% Loss Loss 1.0% 4.4% 9.0% N/A 12.9% Loss 9.8% 10.7% 10.4% N/A 16.0% N/A 1.5% 8.3% 8.5% N/A 6.0% 8.5% 11.3% 14.7% 13.0% See Notes 8.6% 9.3% Loss 15.9% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No N/A No Yes No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Business is operating at a loss, council has provided commercial grounds for doing so. QCA's review of documents indicates that the assets leased/utilised by the business do not incorporate a ROR on capital. An FCP rating is unavailable. QCA notes that the activity operates at break even. However the pools are managed by private sector operators under exclusive management arrangements which include an appropriate rate of return on assets. Activity has been divested ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). QCA 's review of documents indicates that rental returns are based on market rates. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. QCA notes however that prices are set at market rates. 1 CN Complaint received and Resolved. Business is budgeting for a loss, no commercial grounds established. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. No ratings are therefore available. Council's business is budgeting for a loss this year. No commercial grounds were provided for why the business is budgeting on a loss. QCA Modelling indicates that the business is running at a loss. Significant revenues were not identified by council. It is not possible to provide an FCP rating. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. Business leases its assets, these leasing costs are equivalent to a 4.4% ROR. However the business itself is budgeting for a loss. It is not possible to provide a FCP rating. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 2 Council Caboolture Caboolture Caboolture Caboolture Caboolture Caboolture Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Cairns Calliope Caloundra Caloundra Caloundra Caloundra Caloundra Cambooya Carpentaria Clifton Clifton Clifton Business Commercial Property Management Community Halls Plant & Fleet Roads Swimming Pools/Leisure Centre Waste Management Building Services Car Parking Caravan Parks Cemeteries Child Care Commercial Properties Community Housing Cultural - City Place Cultural - Civic Theatre Cultural - Grafton Arts Theatre Cultural - Ticketlink Entertainment - Tank Arts Information Technology Services Laboratory Sports and Recreation Survey and Design Tourism Training Services Fleet Management Building Services Caravan Parks Child Care Cultural Sports and Recreation Roads (AAPC and Contract) Plant and Equipment Private Works Sports, Recreation and Community Water and Sewerage Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All Many All Many Many All Many Some Many Not achieving FCR N/A Most Most Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All All All All Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR Most Many All Many All CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF No ICF IF ICF Rate of Return Loss 9.0% 9.5% 9.5% 9.3% 35.0% 5.6% Loss 2.5% Loss N/A Loss 4.4% Loss Loss Loss 8.2% Loss Loss 14.2% Loss Loss Loss Loss 9.3% 34.0% 18.0% Loss Loss Loss 1.8% 1.6% 8.6% 8.7% 17.0% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No Notes Business is operating at a loss, council has provided commercial grounds for doing so. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). Business currently operates at a loss, QCA has cited council strategy to recover full costs. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. FCP Rating not available. Activity has been divested Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. FCP Rating not available. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. ROR is based on margin on costs. Prices are set at market rates. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. Council has justified loss on commercial grounds, prices are based on market rates. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Council has not substantiated a CSO that accounts for 86% of revenue. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 3 Council Cook Cooloola Cooloola Crows Nest Crows Nest Dalby Dalby Dalrymple Eidsvold Emerald Emerald Gatton Gatton Gladstone Gladstone Gladstone Gladstone Gladstone Gladstone Gold Coast Gold Coast Gold Coast Gold Coast Gold Coast Gold Coast Gold Coast Gold Coast Herberton Hervey Bay Hervey Bay Hervey Bay Ipswich Ipswich Ipswich Ipswich Business Planning and Development Building Services Recoverable Works Highfields Cultural Centre Road Natural Gas Road Road Road Land Development Private Works Child Care Road Art Gallery Child Care Entertainment Land Development Sports and Recreation Works Building Services Car Parking Cemeteries Cultural Malls Management Quarry Sports and Recreation Tourism Road Building Services Caravan Parks Road Asphalt Plant Building Services Cemeteries Cultural Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None None None Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Most All All Some All All Most N/A All All All Many All Many N/A Many All All All All N/A N/A N/A N/A All N/A All All All All N/A N/A Some Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF N/A IF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A N/A N/A ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 4.5% 13.0% 8.2% Loss 13.3% 7.3% 4.2% N/A 12.4% 10.2% 20.0% 0.4% 14.7% 10.5% N/A 10.5% 10.2% 10.5% 3.7% 12.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.2% N/A 23.3% 14.8% 72.0% 17.8% N/A N/A Loss Loss Loss Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes No No No No N/A No No N/A No No No No No No N/A No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A No No No No N/A N/A No No No No Information Provided Business is budgeting for a small loss. Notes Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not substantiated a CSO which comprises 95% of revenue. Activity has been divested Council has not substantiated a CSO which comprises 68% of revenue. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not yet resolved to apply the code. Council has divested this activity. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 4 Council Ipswich Ipswich Ipswich Isis Isisford Jericho Johnstone Kilcoy Kilkivan Laidley Livingstone Livingstone Livingstone Logan Logan Logan Logan Longreach Longreach Mackay Mackay Mackay Mackay Mareeba Mareeba Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Maroochy Business Information Technology Plant Provider Unit Sports and Recreation Private Works Road Road Property Operations Private Works Road Road Caravan Parks Design Services Other Private Works Building Services Cultural (2) Plant Fleet Services Sports and Recreation Road Sport and Recreation Building Services Entertainment Road Sports and Recreation Design Laboratory Aerodromes Building Services Caravan Parks Cemeteries Certification Child Care Cultural Design Quarry Road Level of Reform None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Commercialisation None Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing N/A All Many All Not achieving FCR All Many All Most N/A Most All Not achieving FCR All Not achieving FCR Many All All All Most Many All Many All All All N/A All Most N/A Most Not achieving FCR N/A All Not achieving FCR CSOs N/A ICF IF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF IF N/A ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF Rate of Return N/A 3.9% 0.9% 27.5% Loss 9.2% 6.5% 9.0% 16.5% N/A 4.6% 10.0% Loss 2.5% 15.0% Breakeven See Notes 12.1% 14.4% 9.1% 2.3% 18.0% 4.6% 15.0% 21.3% 7.3% N/A 17.5% 5.9% N/A Loss Loss N/A 10.3% Loss Complaint Complaints Process N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No N/A No No N/A No No Council has divested this activity. Notes Council has not yet substantiated a CSO comprising 70% of revenue. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 55% of revenue. Council has not yet resolved to apply the code. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has not substantiated a CSO equating to 42% of revenue. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Loss due to a reduction in government subsidies and grants. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 5 Council Maroochy Maryborough Millmerran Mornington Mount Isa Mount Isa Mount Isa Mount Isa Murgon Murilla Murweh Nanango Nanango Nebo Noosa Noosa Noosa Noosa Noosa Noosa Peak Downs Peak Downs Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Redcliffe Redcliffe Business Sports and Recreation Brolga Theatre Plant and Equipment Tavern/Hotel Building Services Entertainment Road Tourism Tourism Road Private Works Building Services Plant and Equipment Recreation and Sports Building Services Caravan Parks Child Care Quarry Respite Care Sports and Recreation Private Works Quarry Building Services Child Care Commercial Properties Cultural 2 Nurseries Sports and Recreation Cemeteries Entertainment Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Not achieving FCR All Most Many Not achieving FCR Many All Many All All All Not achieving FCR All Some All All Most All Not achieving FCR Many All All All All All N/A N/A N/A Many Many CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF IF IF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A ICF IF IF Rate of Return Loss 10.4% 1.4% 11.8% 33.0% 9.0% 34.0% 24.3% 10.7% 1.9% 26.0% Loss 9.5% 5.8% 8.3% 11.0% 4.6% 2.9% Loss Breakeven 8.6% 11.2% 3.8% 10.0% N/A N/A N/A Loss 32.0% 4.2% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No N/A N/A No No No Notes Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not substantiated a CSO which equates to 72% of revenue. Council has not substantiated a CSO that comprises 77% of revenue. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 100% of revenue. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business is budgeting for a loss. Council has not provided any commercial reasons for pricing at below full cost Council has not substantiated a CSO which comprises 55% of revenues. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business is budgeting for a loss. Council has not provided any commercial reasons for pricing at below full cost. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business has set prices at market rates and justified decision on commercial grounds. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business is budgeting for a loss. Council has not provided any commercial reasons for pricing at below full cost. Unable to provide FCP rating. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 30% of revenue. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 84% of revenue. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 6 Council Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Redland Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Roma Roma Roma Sarina Tambo Thuringowa Thuringowa Thuringowa Tiaro Tiaro Toowoomba Business Building Services Caravan Parks Cemeteries Child Care Cultural Entertainment Centre/Hall Family Day Care Land Development Outside School Hours Care Private Works Respite Care Aerodromes Building Services Cemeteries Child Care Entertainment Grasslands Residential Industrial Estates Private Works Road Sports and Recreation Tourism Big Rig Tourist Attraction Garbage and Refuse Road Road Road Building Services Engineering Design Unit Workshop Private Works Road Cemeteries Level of Reform None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing N/A Many Some All N/A N/A N/A Some N/A Most Most N/A All Not achieving FCR N/A Not achieving FCR N/A N/A Not achieving FCR Many Not achieving FCR N/A Not achieving FCR Most All Most All All All Most Not achieving FCR All Not achieving FCR CSOs N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF N/A N/A ICF ICF IF N/A No ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return N/A Loss Loss See Notes Loss Loss Loss 52.0% Loss 7.3% 12.9% Loss 20.0% 12.2% N/A 7.3% N/A N/A Loss 17.0% 11.0% N/A Loss Loss 8.8% 10.4% 15.8% 29.0% 13.0% 4.3% Loss 11.6% Loss Complaint Complaints Process N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No N/A N/A No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No Unable to provide an FCP rating. Notes Council has resolved to discontinue this activity. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not substantiated a CSO that comprises 70% of revenue. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has not substantiated a CSO that comprises 57% of revenue. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 85% of revenue. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 7 Council Toowoomba Toowoomba Toowoomba Toowoomba Torres Townsville Townsville Townsville Townsville Townsville Townsville Townsville Townsville Townsville Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Warwick Warwick Warwick Warwick Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Winton Winton Winton Wondai Caboolture Business Competitive Development Assessment Entertainment Road Sports and Recreation Private Works Building Services Car Parking Child Care Commercial Properties Cultural Entertainment Land Development Nurseries Plant and Equipment Design Plant Operations Quarry Road Parks and Gardens Recreation and Aquatic Centre Saleyards Workshop and Plant Hire Aerodromes Jetty Quarry Tourism Facilities Waste Management Services Private Works Road Saleyards Private Works Building Services Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All All Most Most Some All All N/A All N/A Many All All All Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All All All Many Most All All All All Many All Not achieving FCR All All Not achieving FCR All CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 11.5% 4.5% Loss 5.7% 5.1% 11.3% 8.2% N/A 5.1% N/A 5.3% See Notes 14.7% 9.8% Loss Loss 28.0% 12.1% 6.9% 8.5% 9.2% 9.8% 33.7% 15.5% 25.8% 11.5% 30.7% Loss Loss 10.6% Loss 30.0% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No No No N/A No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Council has divested this activity. Notes Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 61% of revenue. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 71% of revenue. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 8 Council Business Level of Reform Full Cost Pricing CSOs Rate of Return Complaint Complaints Process Notes Non Type 3 Businesses - non-competitive businesses exceeding $200,000 in annual expenditure Aramac Aramac Aramac Aramac Atherton Atherton Atherton Atherton Aurukun Aurukun Balonne Balonne Banana Banana Banana Banana Banana Banana Banana Banana Barcaldine Barcaldine Barcaldine Barcaldine Barcaldine Barcaldine Barcoo Barcoo Barcoo Bauhinia Bauhinia Bauhinia Beaudesert Other Roads Plant Operations Private Works Water & Sewerage Environmental Services Other Roads Water & Sewerage Works & Technical General Store Tavern Other Roads Water & Sewerage Cultural Other Roads Planning and Development Assessment Private Works Public Amenities and Cleansing Recreation and Parks Refuse Management Water & Sewerage Housing and Welfare Services Other Roads Plant Operations Quarry Sports and Recreation Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Recreation and Culture Other Roads Plant Operations Water & Sewerage Other Roads Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) All All All All All All Most All N/A N/A N/A N/A Most Some Most Most All Most Most N/A All All Most All All N/A All All All All Not achieving FCR Most Many ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF 10.9% 10.9% 10.6% 9.1% 8.5% 8.5% 9.2% 8.5% N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.1% 1.2% 4.2% 1.6% 6.2% 7.3% 9.0% 8.7% 13.9% 9.0% 8.7% 9.0% 4.9% 9.0% 18.0% 18.0% 6.3% 3.4% Loss 5.5% 4.4% Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Council's business is budgeting for a loss this year. No commercial grounds were provided for why the business is budgeting on a loss. Council has not yet substantiated its CSO which represents 31% of revenue. It is not possible to attribute an FCP rating. Council has not yet substantiated its CSO which represents 41% of revenue. Council has not yet substantiated its CSO which represents 55% of revenue. It is not possible to attribute an FCP rating. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Did not seek an extension of time. Did not seek an extension of time. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 9 Council Beaudesert Beaudesert Beaudesert Belyando Belyando Belyando Belyando Bendemere Biggenden Biggenden Blackall Blackall Blackall Boonah Boonah Boonah Boonah Boonah Booringa Booringa Booringa Boulia Boulia Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Bowen Brisbane Brisbane Broadsound Business Refuse Management Water & Sewerage Workshop Fleet Operations Other Roads Refuse Management Water & Sewerage Other Roads Other Roads Water & Sewerage Fleet and Plant Services Other Roads Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Quarry Refuse Management Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant and Equipment Hire Computer Services Design Services Other Roads Parks and Recreation Maintenance Plant and Equipment Plant and Equipment Hire Quarry Refuse Tip Services Regulatory Services Water & Sewerage Plumbing Certification River City Technology Other Roads Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All All Most None None N/A Some Most Many N/A N/A N/A N/A All All All Most Most All All All All All All All N/A Most N/A N/A N/A N/A All All All Many All CSOs ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A N/A N/A ICF ICF N/A N/A N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 22.0% 12.0% 4.4% N/A N/A N/A 2.8% 7.1% 9.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.9% 12.9% 12.9% 9.0% 6.5% 10.7% 10.7% 10.0% N/A N/A 9.1% 18.1% 2.9% 16.0% 12.8% 7.7% 2.7% 18.7% 18.4% 9.6% 61.0% 1.5% 13.3% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Activity not separately identified in Council’s budget and financial reporting documents. Activity not separately identified in Council’s budget and financial reporting documents. Activity not separately identified in Council’s budget and financial reporting documents. Some cost elements not considered. ROR may therefore be overstated. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. No ratings are therefore available. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. No ratings are therefore available. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. No ratings are therefore available. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. No ratings are therefore available. Business leases its assets, these leasing costs include a suitable return on capital. Business leases its assets, these leasing costs include a suitable return on capital. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base. DLGP's target for return on costs is 10%. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Council has not substantiated its revenues. No FCP rating is available. Council has not substantiated a number of its costs. FCP rating is not available. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). Council has not substantiated its costs, QCA estimates that ROR on leased assets is below full cost. Council has not substantiated is revenues. No FCP rating is available. ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 10 Council Broadsound Broadsound Broadsound Broadsound Bulloo Bulloo Bulloo Bulloo Bulloo Bulloo Bundaberg Bundaberg Bundaberg Bundaberg Bungil Bungil Burdekin Burdekin Burdekin Burdekin Burdekin Burke Burke Burke Burke Burnett Burnett Burnett Burnett Cairns Cairns Cairns Calliope Calliope Calliope Calliope Calliope Business Plant Operations Sewerage Waste Management Water Supply Aerodrome Operations Environment Services and Utilities Other Roads Plant Operations Private Works Sports, Rec. & Community Facilities Aerodromes Other Roads Private Works Refuse Management Other Roads Plant Operations Other Roads Plant Management Recoverable Works Refuse Management Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant & Equipment Private Works Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant & Fleet Refuse Management Water & Sewerage Other Roads Plant and Equipment Roads Other Roads Park Maintenance Private Works Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All All All All All N/A All All All N/A Most N/A N/A Many All All Many All All All All Some Some Some Some All Most Most All N/A All Not achieving FCR All All All All Most CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 13.3% 9.0% 12.4% 9.0% 9.5% N/A 8.4% 8.4% 8.4% N/A 10.4% See Notes N/A 2.4% 11.3% 11.3% 4.5% 9.3% 18.6% 9.0% 9.0% 16.5% 3.0% 9.0% Loss 2.0% 2.0% 9.5% 8.3% N/A 12.1% Loss 9.3% 9.3% 9.3% See Notes 0.4% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No N/A No No No N/A No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No Has not yet resolved to apply the code Has not yet resolved to apply the code Has not yet resolved to apply the code Notes When contributed assets taken account of ROR rises to 31% ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). When contributed assets taken account of ROR rises to 31% Business generates margin on costs of 2.5%, however leasing rates to business do not include an adequate ROR on capital. Unable to provide FCP rating. Has not yet resolved to apply the code Business operates at a loss with no commercial reason for doing so. Below target ROR due to increasing costs that have not yet been reflected in pricing. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Commercial contracts with private sector provider includes commercial rate of return. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 11 Council Caloundra Caloundra Caloundra Cambooya Cambooya Cambooya Cambooya Cambooya Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Cardwell Carpentaria Carpentaria Charters Towers Charters Towers Charters Towers Charters Towers Chinchilla Chinchilla Chinchilla Chinchilla Chinchilla Clifton Clifton Clifton Cloncurry Cloncurry Cloncurry Other Roads Business Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Not achieving FCR Many All Not achieving FCR Most Many Many Most Most Most Most Most Most Most N/A N/A Most Many Some Many All All All All All N/A All All All All All All Many Many N/A CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF IF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF IF IC No No ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF Rate of Return Loss Loss 10.0% Loss 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 3.8% Breakeven 8.9% 8.2% 8.2% 5.5% Loss Loss 4.7% 4.8% 1.6% 2.3% 9.4% 9.4% 21.0% 11.0% 9.1% See Notes 9.1% 9.1% 9.5% 8.6% 8.6% 8.6% 0.6% 6.8% Loss Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Some CSOs require further costing. Some CSOs require further costing. Some CSOs require further costing. Notes Business is operating at a loss, this is due to a large number of revenues not being appropriately identified. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. Some revenues not considered. ROR may therefore be understated. Parks and Gardens Refuse Management Community and Cultural Other Roads Plant and Workshop Private Roads Water and Sewerage Community Health and Welfare Cultural Development Services Environmental Services Other Roads Parks, Reserves and Aerodromes Plant and Equipment Refuse Management Sports and Recreation Water and Sewerage Other Roads Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations and Equipment Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Cultural Centre Land Development Other Roads Plant and Equipment Water and Sewerage Environmental Management Other Roads Plant Hire Aerodromes Aged Care Child Care ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). ROR is based on margin on costs due to small asset base (DLGP's target is 10%). Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. FCP Rating not available. Business is operating at a loss, council has not provided commercial grounds for doing so. FCP Rating not available. Some CSOs require further costing. CSOs have not been funded. ROR is included in lease/hire rates of assets. Activity does not hold substantial assets. Margin on costs used in lieu of return on assets. Unable to determine either FCP rating or ROR as significant costs were not attributed to the business. Council has not substantiated a CSO that accounts for 29% of revenue. Business is operating at a loss. A strategy has been developed to meet the total revenue requirement. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 12 Council Cloncurry Cloncurry Cloncurry Cloncurry Cloncurry Cloncurry Cloncurry Cook Cook Cook Cook Cook Cook Cooloola Cooloola Cooloola Cooloola Cooloola Cooloola Crows Nest Crows Nest Crows Nest Crows Nest Crows Nest Crows Nest Croydon Croydon Croydon Croydon Dalby Dalby Dalby Business Land Development Other Roads Plant and Equipment Private Works Refuse Management Saleyard Water and Sewerage Aerodromes Health and Environmental Services Other Roadworks Activities Plant Operators Sports, Rec. & Community Facilities Water and Sewerage Utilities Cultural Fleet Gravel & Quarry Operations Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Commercial Properties Other Roads Parks and Gardens Plant and Equipment Refuse, Recycling and Tip Activities Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Road Sports and Recreation Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Level of Reform None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing N/A All All All Most Many Many Most Most All All Most All N/A All All All All All All All All All Some All All All All All Most All Most CSOs N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return N/A Breakeven 16.3% 16.3% Loss 3.8% Loss 14.8% 1.3% 14.3% 14.3% 16.7% 9.8% N/A 8.2% 8.2% 8.2% 4.2% 15.0% See Notes 13.3% 9.5% 13.3% Loss 2.8% 11.7% 10.7% 3.7% 12.6% 3.7% 20.0% 5.2% Complaint Complaints Process N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Business is operating at a loss. A strategy has been developed to meet the total revenue requirement. Business is operating at a loss. A strategy has been developed to meet the total revenue requirement. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not yet resolved to apply the code. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Business is budgeting for a loss. Council has documented a strategy to meet its total revenue requirement. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 13 Council Dalrymple Dalrymple Dalrymple Diamantina Diamantina Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Douglas Duaringa Duaringa Duaringa Duaringa Eacham Eacham Eacham Eacham Eidsvold Eidsvold Emerald Emerald Emerald Emerald Emerald Esk Esk Esk Esk Esk Esk Etheridge Other Roads Saleyard Business Level of Reform None None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing N/A N/A N/A All All All All All All All All All All All All Most All All All All All All Some All All N/A All All All N/A All All CSOs N/A N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF Rate of Return N/A N/A N/A 9.0% 9.5% 14.1% 22.0% See Notes 48.0% 12.0% 15.0% 15.0% 3.8% 11.5% 20.0% 6.9% 19.8% 9.3% 12.4% 9.0% 10.8% 5.4% Loss 7.3% 9.2% N/A 6.0% See Notes 15.7% N/A 7.5% 15.1% Complaint Complaints Process N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No N/A No No No Information Provided No Information Provided No Information Provided Notes Water and Sewerage Other Roads Water and Sewerage Development Services Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Refuse Operations Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Plant Operations Water Sewerage and Cleansing Airport Other Roads Plant Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Engineering Management Other Roads Plant Refuse Management Town and Village Facilities Water and Sewerage Other Roads Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not yet substantiated a CSO comprising 23% of revenue. Business budgeting for a loss. Council has developed a strategy to meet the revenue requirement in future. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 14 Council Etheridge Etheridge Fitzroy Fitzroy Fitzroy Fitzroy Fitzroy Flinders Flinders Gatton Gatton Gatton Gayndah Gayndah Gayndah Gladstone Gladstone Gladstone Gladstone Gold Coast Goondiwindi Goondiwindi Goondiwindi Goondiwindi Goondiwindi Herberton Herberton Herberton Hervey Bay Hervey Bay Hervey Bay Hervey Bay Hervey Bay Business Plant and Equipment Road Fleet and Plant Other Roads Quarry Refuse Tip and Transfer Stations Water and Sewerage Other Roads Water and Sewerage Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant and Equipment Water and Sewerage Building Certification Plant Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Other Roads Parks and Gardens Plant and Equipment Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Water and Sewerage Aerodromes Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Workshop Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All All Many Most Most Many Many All All All All All Most Many Many N/A All All All N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A All All All All Many Many All Not achieving FCR CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF See Notes See Notes See Notes N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF No No No No No ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 15.1% 15.1% 2.3% 4.5% 26.9% 15.9% 9.4% 9.0% 8.4% 5.1% 19.0% 9.1% 4.2% 1.3% 2.4% N/A 10.2% 3.5% 9.8% See Notes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.8% 14.8% 15.0% 8.6% 18.2% 1.8% 4.2% Loss Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. A CSO worth 12% of water operating expenditure and another equal to 14% of sewerage operating expenditure has not been substantiated. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council does not have a policy in place to identify, cost and fund CSOs. However council states that no CSOs exist. Council does not have a policy in place to identify, cost and fund CSOs. However council states that no CSOs exist. Council does not have a policy in place to identify, cost and fund CSOs. However council states that no CSOs exist. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Insufficient information to determine either ROR or FCP Rating. Council did not supply sufficient information to determine either ROR of FCP rating. Council did not supply sufficient information to determine either ROR of FCP rating. Council did not supply sufficient information to determine either ROR of FCP rating. Council did not supply sufficient information to determine either ROR of FCP rating. Council did not supply sufficient information to determine either ROR of FCP rating. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 15 Council Hinchinbrook Hinchinbrook Hinchinbrook Ilfracombe Ilfracombe Ilfracombe Inglewood Inglewood Inglewood Ipswich Isis Isis Isis Isis Isis Isis Isisford Isisford Isisford Isisford Jericho Jericho Jericho Johnstone Johnstone Johnstone Johnstone Johnstone Johnstone Jondaryan Jondaryan Kilcoy Kilcoy Kilcoy Kilkivan Kilkivan Other Roads Business Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All All All All Many All N/A N/A N/A All Most Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All Most All All All Many All All Some All All All All Many All All All All All Not achieving FCR Most Most CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF N/A N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF Rate of Return 5.1% 2.8% 11.4% 35.0% 7.0% Loss N/A N/A N/A 3.9% 2.5% Loss Loss Loss 14.2% 9.0% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 2.8% 8.5% 7.6% Loss 10.2% 19.8% 19.8% 16.5% 6.8% 19.8% 27.9% 14.0% 9.0% 7.7% Loss 16.5% 7.1% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Waste Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operation and Maintenance Recreation and Culture Other Roads Road Water and Sewerage Other Roads Environmental Services Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Sports and Recreation Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Quarry Recreation and Culture Other Roads Plant Operations Water and Sewerage Community Services Other Roads Private Works Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Workshop/Plant Cleansing Services Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Council has not substantiated a CSO that accounts for 33% of revenue. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not substantiated a CSO that accounts for 34% of revenue. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not substantiated a CSO that accounts for 14% of revenue. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 16 Council Kilkivan Kingaroy Kingaroy Kingaroy Kolan Kolan Laidley Laidley Laidley Laidley Livingstone Livingstone Livingstone Livingstone Livingstone Logan Logan Logan Logan Longreach Longreach Longreach Longreach Mackay Mackay Mackay Mackay Mackay Mackay Mackay Business Water and Sewerage Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Road Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Sewerage Water Other Roads Plant Operations Property Development Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Cultural (1) Design Other Roads Quarry Environmental Management Other Roads Plant Water and Sewerage Cemeteries Design Land Development Other Roads Plant and Equipment Plumbing Permits and Inspections Public Toilets Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Some All All Many N/A N/A All All All All All All All All All Many All Most Not achieving FCR N/A All All None All Not achieving FCR All All All All All CSOs IF ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF-1 ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 8.5% 11.0% 7.5% 0.1% N/A N/A 10.4% 10.4% 8.3% 12.0% 9.9% 6.1% 42.0% 9.5% 14.0% 15.0% 15.0% 2.0% Loss N/A 12.1% 12.1% Breakeven 14.2% Loss 14.4% 18.0% 18.0% 26.0% 14.3% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Council has not substantiated a CSO that accounts for 33% of revenue. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not yet resolved to apply the code. Council has not yet resolved to apply the code. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Activity not separately listed in documentation. Unable to provide either ROR or FCP ratings. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 17 Council Mackay Mackay Mareeba Mareeba Mareeba Mareeba Maroochy Maroochy Maryborough Maryborough Maryborough Maryborough Maryborough Maryborough McKinlay McKinlay McKinlay Millmerran Millmerran Mirani Mirani Mirani Mirani Mirani Miriam Vale Miriam Vale Miriam Vale Miriam Vale Monto Monto Monto Monto Monto Business Refuse Management Workshop Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Workshop Car Parking Other Roads Aerodromes Fleet and Plant Management Other Roads Refuse Management Showground Water and Sewerage Other Roads Road Water and Sewerage Other Roads Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Fleet Management Quarry Waste Management Water Supply Economic Development, Promotion and Tourism Other Roads Plant Operations and Maintenance Water and Sewerage Environmental Services Plant Operations Road Sports, Rec. & Community Facilities Water and Sewerage Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing All Most All All All All N/A Not achieving FCR All All All All All All N/A N/A N/A Most Many All All All Most Most All All All Not achieving FCR All All All All All CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF No No No ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 11.1% 7.7% 9.3% 17.5% 9.7% 14.6% N/A Loss 10.5% 10.3% 10.9% 10.3% 2.0% 9.4% N/A N/A N/A 7.3% 1.8% 9.8% See Notes 13.1% 1.6% 6.2% 3.3% 14.3% 1.5% Loss 65.0% 7.6% 7.6% 9.0% 58.0% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. While not providing a figure, the QCA notes that the business is earning a rate of return within the industry benchmark. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Full Cost Budget does not reconcile with adopted budget. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 18 Council Mornington Mornington Mount Isa Mount Isa Mount Isa Mount Isa Mount Isa Mount Morgan Mount Morgan Mundubbera Mundubbera Mundubbera Mundubbera Murgon Murgon Murgon Murgon Murgon Murilla Murilla Murilla Murweh Murweh Murweh Murweh Murweh Murweh Murweh Nanango Nanango Nanango Nebo Business Aged Peoples Home Other Roads Engineering Services Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Sole Invitee Works Water and Works Environmental and Health Plant Operation and Maintenance Road Water and Sewerage Commercial Properties Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Water and Sewerage Aerodrome Operations Area Promotion and Development Environmental Services and Utilities Other Road Works Plant Operations Sports, Rec. & Community Facilities Water and Sewerage Utilities Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Many Many All All Many All All All Many All All All Many All Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All All All All All Many Many Many All All All All All All Most All CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 8.9% See Notes 33.0% 33.0% 1.6% 34.0% 8.8% 8.2% 4.0% 6.2% 16.3% 16.3% 8.1% 9.5% Loss Loss 7.2% 9.3% 1.9% 4.9% 10.0% 3.9% 0.5% Breakeven 8.8% 26.0% 13.3% 11.0% 9.4% 9.4% 8.1% 10.6% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Insufficient information to determine ROR. Margin on Costs appears to be around 16% Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 100% of revenue. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 16% of revenue. Council has not substantiated a SCO which comprises 55% of revenue. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. Business does not operate substantial assets. Margin on costs has been used in lieu of rate of return on assets. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 19 Council Nebo Nebo Nebo Nebo Noosa Noosa Noosa Paroo Paroo Paroo Peak Downs Peak Downs Peak Downs Peak Downs Peak Downs Peak Downs Perry Pine Rivers Pine Rivers Pittsworth Pittsworth Pittsworth Quilpie Quilpie Quilpie Redcliffe Redcliffe Redcliffe Redland Redland Redland Richmond Richmond Business Plant Operations Saleyard Waste Management & Environmental Services Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Other Roads Plant Operations Water and Sewerage Capella Cultural Centre Cleansing Services Parks and Gardens Road Water and Sewerage Workshop/Plant Maintenance Road Cultural 1 Road Other Roads Plant and Equipment Water and Sewerage Community Services Other Roads Plant Operations Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant and Equipment Quarry Other Roads Plant and Equipment Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Most Many Some N/A Many Many Many Some Some Some All Many All All Many N/A Not achieving FCR N/A N/A All All All All All Some N/A All All All All Most All All CSOs ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF I I No ICF IF ICF ICF IF IF No N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return 5.1% 5.3% 6..3% Loss 3.2% 3.2% 4.5% Breakeven 11.7% 8.9% 9.4% 8.9% 9.4% 9.8% Loss Loss No N/A See Notes 12.0% 12.0% 9.7% 11.3% 81.0% 9.4% Breakeven 12.7% 8.1% 8.8% 8.8% 11.3% 22.0% 33.0% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Council has not substantiated a CSO which comprises 70% of total revenue. Business is budgeting for a loss. Council has not provided any commercial reasons for pricing at below full cost. Unable to provide FCP rating. CSO has been identified but not substantiated. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. A CSO was identified for this activity but has not yet been substantiated. Council has not substantiated CSO comprising 21% of revenue. Loss likely due to severe drought conditions. DLGP emergency drought funding has been granted to council. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 25% of revenue. No FCP rating available. Council has not yet resolved to apply the code. Council has resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Revenue has not been properly attributed to this activity. No FCP rating is available. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 29% of revenue. Unable to provide an FCP rating. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 20 Council Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Rockhampton Roma Roma Roma Rosalie Rosalie Rosalie Rosalie Sarina Sarina Sarina Sarina Stanthorpe Stanthorpe Stanthorpe Stanthorpe Tambo Tara Tara Tara Tara Taroom Thuringowa Thuringowa Thuringowa Tiaro Tiaro Tiaro Toowoomba Toowoomba Toowoomba Torres Fleet and Plant Nurseries Other Roads Business Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None None None None None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Not achieving FCR All Many All Some All Many All All Some All Most Some Most Many All All All All All N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Most All All All Not achieving FCR All All All All Some CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF No ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF IF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Rate of Return Loss 10.5% 17.0% 20.0% 0.8% 8.8% 17.0% 11.6% 11.6% 4.2% 16.0% 10.1% Loss 11.1% 9.0% Breakeven 9.0% 9.2% 9.1% 15.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.4% 17.4% 4.3% 11.6% Loss 9.4% 10.0% 9.0% 10.0% 7.8% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No No No No No No No No Notes Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Refuse Management Gas Plant Operations Water Supply and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Waste Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Other Roads Nursing Home Other Roads Sole Invitee Works Water Supply and Sewerage Water and Sewerage Fleet Waste Works Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Airport Fleet and Plant Laboratory Aerodromes Council has not yet substantiated a CSO comprising 53% of revenue. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not substantiated a CSO that comprises 33% of revenue. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Council resolved not to apply the code to this activity. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 21 Council Torres Torres Torres Torres Torres Townsville Waggamba Waggamba Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Wambo Warroo Warroo Warwick Warwick Warwick Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Whitsunday Winton Winton Winton Winton Wondai Wondai Wondai Woocoo Woocoo Child Care Business Level of Reform Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) None Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Code (a) Full Cost Pricing Some Many Many Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All Most Most Not achieving FCR All N/A Not achieving FCR Not achieving FCR All Most All All Most All All All All All Many All All All Most Not achieving FCR Some Not achieving FCR Many Many CSOs ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF N/A ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF No ICF ICF No No Rate of Return 9.0% 14.1% 12.6% 5.1% Loss 8.8% 9.0% 11.0% Loss 28.0% N/A Loss Loss 9.0% 6.3% 7.9% 24.0% 8.6% 72.4% 2.1% 6.1% 17.2% 12.6% 1.3% 13.9% 17.4% 7.8% 10.0% 0.4% 0.4% Loss 4.6% 4.6% Complaint Complaints Process Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No N/A No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Notes Garbage and Refuse Other Roads Plant and Equipment Water and Sewerage Other Roads Other Roads Water and Sewerage Laboratory Other Roads Saleyard Water and Sewerage Workshop Other Roads Water and Sewerage Other Roads Refuse Management Water and Sewerage Building Services Community Facilities Other Roads Parks and Gardens Plant Operation and Maintenance Water and Sewerage Other Roads Parks and Gardens Plant Operations Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Operations Water and Sewerage Other Roads Plant Council has not substantiated a CSO comprising 45% of revenue. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Council has not resolved to apply the code yet. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. Business does not utilise any significant assets. Margin on costs is used in lieu of Rate of return on assets. DLGP target for margin on costs is 10%. (a) Code of Competitive Conduct Attachment 2 – Page 22 Attachment 3 – Local Government Water Tariffs (1 January 2004) Local Government Number of Water Connections Customer Class Pricing Structure Basis for fixed or access charge Fixed/Unit charge Fixed/Unit Excess Details Excess consumption Water allowance charge Two Part Tariff Details Access charge Consumption rate Councils operating Significant Water & Wastewater Businesses, Representing 84.75% of all water connections in Queensland Brisbane 363,741 Residential Commercial Industrial Gold Coast Logan Cairns Maroochy Ipswich 191,030 61,672 53,258 52,092 46,453 Residential Other All Domestic Other Domestic Other All Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed % of Consumption % of Consumption Fixed Meter Diameter Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed Fixed Meter Diameter Fixed NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 45kl (Greening Allowance) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $100.00 % water charges (min $100.00) % water charges (min $100.00/max $26,700) $173.00 $211.00 - $47,475.00 From $145.00 $128.56 $128.56 $154.40 Varies $166.00 $0.84/kl $0.89/kl 0-100,000kl @ $0.89/kl >100,000kl @ $1.02/kl $0.70/kl $0.95/kl $0.79/kl $0.50/kl $0.725/kl $0.87/kl $0.87/kl < 400kl @ $0.56/kl 401-600kl @ $0.90/kl > 600kl @ $1.28/kl < 351kl @ $0.62/kl 351-700kl @ $0.97/kl > 700kl @ $1.22/kl < 980kl $0.411/kl > 980kl $0.60/kl < 980kl $0.411/kl > 980kl $0.60/kl $0.57/kl $0.57/kl NA NA < 324kl @ $0.55/kl > 324kl @ $1.00/kl Pricing same but kl quantities vary depending on water service connection $0.78/kl < 400kl @ $0.40/kl 401-1500kl @ $0.66/kl >1500kl @ $0.75/kl Attachment 3 – Page 1 Caboolture 44,915 All Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed NA NA NA $234.00 Redland 44,695 Domestic Other Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Fixed/Excess Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed Meter Diameter Fixed Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed Meter Diameter Meter Diameter NA NA NA NA $414.72 $640.78 NA NA NA NA NA NA 776kl 322kl NA NA NA NA NA NA $1.30/kl $1.99/kl NA NA $174.50 $231.00 to $8,626.25 $170.00 $185.00 NA NA $280.00 $436.00 to $15,680 Pine Rivers Townsville Toowoomba 44,217 36,002 35,476 Domestic Other Domestic Commercial Domestic Other Caloundra Mackay 34,441 29,297 All All Two-part tariff Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed Fixed NA NA NA NA NA NA $78.00 $152.60 Local Government Rockhampton Hervey Bay Noosa Thuringowa Bundaberg Number of Water Connections 24,000 22,173 20,241 18,672 17,032 Customer Class Domestic Other All Domestic Other Domestic Other Domestic Pricing Structure Fixed Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Fixed/Excess or Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Basis for fixed or access charge Fixed Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed Meter Diameter Fixed Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed/Unit charge $472.00 NA $199.00 NA NA $459.00 NA NA Fixed/Unit Excess Details Excess consumption Water allowance charge NA NA NA NA NA 768kl NA NA NA NA NA NA NA $1.12/kl NA NA Two Part Tariff Details Access charge NA Varies NA $130.00 Various $195.00 Various $230.00 Consumption rate NA < 900kl @ $0.52/kl $0.94/kl $0.72/kl $0.72/kl $0.82/kl $1.12/kl < 600 @ $0.27/kl 600-1200 @ $0.60/kl > 1200 @ $0.88/kl As Above Other Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Meter Diameter NA NA NA From $230.00 Councils with greater than 5000 water connections, representing 7.37% of all water connections in Queensland Redcliffe 21,773 All Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed NA NA NA $126.00 < 150kl @ $0.42/kl 150kl-300kl @ $0.84/kl > 300kl @ $1.26/kl < 400kl @ $0.50/kl 400 - 1000kl @ $0.75/kl > 1000kl @ $1.00/kl Gladstone 10,847 All Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Historic Use NA NA NA Cooloola 9,961 Domestic Other Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Meter Diameter Meter Diameter NA NA NA NA NA NA Previous Years Consumption / Access Charge < 2000kl / $175.00 2000-5000kl / $350.00 5000-20000kl / $875.00 20,000-100,000kl / $1750.00 > 100000kl / $7000.00 From $190 From $243 Maryborough 9,803 Domestic Com.& Ind. Other All Other - Caves All All All Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Fixed Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Fixed Meter Diameter Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed Meter Diameter Meter Diameter Units NA NA NA NA $95.00 NA NA $75.00 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 125kl NA NA NA NA $0.60/kl Total NA NA $0.70/kl $225.00 $280.00 - $22,500.00 $420.00 - $33,750.00 $290.00 NA $275.00 - $6,863.00 $233.40 - $13,128.75 NA Livingstone 8,883 Warwick Beaudesert Mount Isa 7,085 6,950 6,756 < 291kl @ $0.422/kl > 291kl @ $1.158/kl < 291kl @ $0.422/kl > 291kl @ $1.158/kl $0.70/kl or Concessional Charge $0.57/kl (as approved) $0.70/kl $1.05/kl < 400kl @ $0.30/kl > 400kl @ $1.20/kl NA $0.75/kl $0.82/kl NA Attachment 3 – Page 2 Local Government Burdekin Douglas Burnett Whitsunday Number of Water Connections 6,280 5,782 5,442 5,013 Customer Class All All All Domestic Commercial Industrial Other Pricing Structure Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Unit/Excess Two-part tariff Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Basis for fixed or access charge Access Units Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed NA Fixed/Unit charge Fixed/Unit Excess Details Excess consumption Water allowance charge NA 131kl 450kl NA NA NA NA NA $0.65/kl NA NA NA NA NA Two Part Tariff Details Access charge $240.00 NA $306.00 $180.00 $252.00 $324.00 $252.00 Consumption rate < 1,000kl @ $0.10 > 1,000kl @ $0.50 NA < 450kl @ $0.26/kl > 450kl @ $1.20/kl < 365kl @ $0.55 > 365kl @ $0.95 < 365kl @ $0.55 > 365kl @ $0.95 < 365kl @ $0.55 > 365kl @ $0.95 < 365kl @ $0.55 > 365kl @ $0.95 $65.05 NA NA NA NA NA Councils with above 1000 but below 5000 connections, representing 6.41% of all water connections in Queensland Mareeba 4,685 Domestic Commercial Industrial Bowen Emerald Calliope 4,587 4,473 4,392 All All All Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed/Excess Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Meter Diameter NA NA NA $450.00 NA NA Nil Nil Nil 750kl NA NA NA NA NA $0.75/kl NA NA $216.00 $385.00 $3,000.00 NA $206.00 min $149 < 550kl @ $0.15 > 550kl @ $0.45 < 550kl @ $0.15 > 550kl @ $0.45 < 550kl @ $0.15 > 550kl @ $0.45 NA $0.38/kl < 312kl @ $0.50/kl 312-468kl @ $0.73/kl > 468kl @ $0.95kl $0.42/kl < 400kl @ $0.235/kl 400-1000kl @ $0.40/kl > 1000kl @ $0.635/kl $1.14/kl $1.14/kl NA NA NA Hinchinbrook Atherton 4,378 4,207 All All Two-part tariff Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed Fixed NA NA NA NA NA NA $210.00 $134.00 Kingaroy 4,142 Domestic Other Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Fixed Historic Use Units Units Units NA NA $319.00 Varies NA NA NA 60kl/unit 60kl/unit 600kl NA NA 60-100kl @ $0.60 >100kl @ $1.00 60-100kl @ $0.60 >100kl @ $1.00 $1.50/kl Cardwell 4,001 Domestic Other $133.80 $133.80/270kl of consumption in previous year NA NA NA Banana 3,840 All Attachment 3 – Page 3 Local Government Belyando Jondaryan Number of Water Connections 3,423 3,375 Customer Class Domestic Com.& Ind. Domestic Commercial Industrial Other Pricing Structure Fixed/Excess Fixed/Excess Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Fixed Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Basis for fixed or access charge Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Units Units Fixed Fixed/Unit charge $437.00 $437.00 $297.00/$194.00/ $240.00 $297.00/$194.00/ $240.00 $297.00/$194.00/ $240.00 $294.00/$194.00/ $240.00 $356.00 $89.00/unit $89.00/unit NA Fixed/Unit Excess Details Excess consumption Water allowance charge 727kl 639kl NA NA NA NA 900kl NA NA NA $0.71/kl $0.71/kl NA NA NA NA $0.56kl $0.56/kl $0.56/kl NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Two Part Tariff Details Access charge Consumption rate NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA < 200kl @ $0.40/kl 200-400kl @ $0.50/kl > 400kl @ $1.00/kl < 200kl @ $0.40/kl 200-400kl @ $0.50/kl > 400kl @ $1.00/kl < 200kl @ $0.40/kl 200-400kl @ $0.50/kl > 400kl @ $1.00/kl < 280kl @ $0.56/kl > 280kl @ $1.39/kl Charters Towers 3,314 Gatton 3,302 Domestic Commercial Industrial Domestic NA NA NA $385.00 Com.& Ind.l Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed NA NA NA $435.00 Other Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed NA NA NA $230.00 Crow's Nest 3,176 All Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed NA NA NA $165.00 Esk 2,950 All Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed NA NA NA $405.00 > 200kl @ $0.68 200kl-400kl @ $0.80 > 400kl @ $1.48 NA NA NA $0.50/kl $0.58/kl NA NA NA NA Roma 2,587 Duaringa Stanthorpe Goondiwindi 2,507 2,483 2,208 Domestic Commercial Industrial All All Domestic Commercial Industrial Other Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Units Units Units Units Meter Diameter Fixed Land use Land use Land use $427.52 $1,002.00 $587.08 NA NA $341.20 (4 units) From $341.20 From $341.20 From $341.20 750kl 1,757kl 1,031kl NA NA 400kl Varies Varies Varies $0.54 $0.54 $0.54 NA NA 200kl>allowance-$0.60/kl thereafter $0.81/kl NA NA NA $75.00/unit $208.00 - $5,200 NA NA NA NA Attachment 3 – Page 4 Local Government Broadsound Chinchilla Rosalie Number of Water Connections 2,013 1,953 1,931 Customer Class All All All Pricing Structure Fixed/Excess Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Basis for fixed or access charge Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed/Unit charge $398.00 NA NA Fixed/Unit Excess Details Excess consumption Water allowance charge 720kl NA NA $0.40/kl NA NA Two Part Tariff Details Access charge NA $194.00 $194.00 Consumption rate NA < 400kl @ $0.49/kl > 400kl @ $1.00/kl < 300kl @ $0.75/kl 300-400kl @ $1.28/kl > 400kl $1.80/kl NA $0.80/kl $0.41/kl NA NA NA < 320 @ $0.35/kl 320-420 @ $0.98/kl > 420 @ $1.38/kl NA NA NA NA $0.70/kl NA Constant $0.45/kl NA Murweh Boonah Fitzroy Balonne 1,833 1,769 1,557 1,539 Nanango 1,491 All All All Domestic Commercial Industrial All Fixed/Excess Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Unit/Excess Multi-part Tariff (Inclining) Fixed Meter Diameter Meter Diameter Fixed Fixed Fixed Units $400.00 NA NA $440.00 $462.00 $255.00 NA 1,000kl NA NA 294kl 309kl 171kl NA $0.50/kl NA NA $0.28/kl $0.28/kl $0.28/kl NA NA From $200 From $218.00 NA NA NA $198.00 Longreach S 1,452 Commercial Other Fixed/Excess Fixed/Excess Fixed/Excess Fixed/Excess Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Two-part tariff Unit/Excess Fixed Fixed Fixed Units Fixed Unit Meter Diameter Units $703.20 $468.80 $348.00 $118.00/unit NA $46.38/unit NA $74.20 1,800kl 1,200kl 500kl 228kl/unit NA 70kl/unit NA 500kl Eacham Mount Morgan Wondai Herberton Pittsworth Cook 1,319 1,312 1,302 1,177 1,148 1,043 All All All All All Domestic Other Unit/Excess Units Varies Varies Murgon 1,019 Domestic Commercial Industrial Other Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Two-part tariff Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed NA NA NA NA 100kl 100kl 100kl 100kl 1800kl-2100kl @ $0.50/kl > 2100kl @ $0.58 1200-1500kl @ $0.50/kl > 1500kl@ $0.58/kl $0.65/kl 228kl-456kl @ $1.20/kl > 456kl @ $1.30/kl NA $0.75/kl $0.45/kl < 200kl @ $1.20/kl 200-400kl @ $1.50/kl > 400kl @ $2.00/kl < 200kl @ $1.20/kl 200-400kl @ $1.50/kl > 400kl @ $2.00/kl >100kl-$0.52/kl >100kl-$0.52/kl >100kl-$0.52/kl >100kl-$0.52/kl NA NA NA NA $130.00 NA $200 - $799.80 NA NA NA $142.80 $142.80 $186.60 NA NA NA NA NA Attachment 3 – Page 5 Attachment 4 – Local Government CoAG Water Reform Council Number of Water Connections Two Part Tariff Report Report Recomm -endation Council Resolution Full Cost Recovery Full Cost Pricing CSOs ** Cross Subsidies Report Completed Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rate of Return (%) N/A 2.7 8.2 3.6 6.1 4.5 8.8 8.1 4.2 8.5 N/A 7 7.9 13.5 2.2 4.8 13 8.5 8.1 9.9 12 Notes Councils operating Significant Water & Wastewater Businesses ― representing 84.75% of all water connections in Queensland Brisbane * Gold Coast Logan Cairns Maroochy Ipswich Caboolture Redland Pine Rivers Townsville Toowoomba* Caloundra Mackay Rockhampton Hervey Bay Noosa Thuringowa Bundaberg Redcliffe Gladstone Cooloola 363,741 191,030 61,672 53,258 52,092 46,453 44,915 44,695 44,217 36,002 35,476 34,441 29,297 24,000 22,173 20,241 18,672 17,032 21,773 10,847 9,961 Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done For For For For For For For For For see notes For For For see notes For For For For For For For For For For For For For For For For see notes For For For see notes For For For For For For For All All All All All All All All All All Most All All Most All All All All All Most Most ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Low rate of return a likely result of severe drought conditions and water restrictions. FCP rating due to ROR result being below Queensland Treasury target. FCP rating due to ROR result being below Queensland Treasury target. 2PT report indicated 2PT for commercial customers but not residential customers. Council voted accordingly. Rockhampton has conducted two 2PT reports, the first finding in favour, the second against. Subsequently RCC has resolved to implement a 2PT for residential customers in 2005. FCP rating due to ROR result being below Queensland Treasury target. FCP rating due to ROR result being below Queensland Treasury target. Councils with greater than 5000 water connections, representing 7.37% of all water connections in Queensland Attachment 4 – Page 1 Council Number of Water Connections 9,803 8,883 7,085 6,950 6,756 6,280 5,782 5,442 5,013 Two Part Tariff Report Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Report Recomm -endation see notes For For For Against For Against For For Council Resolution Full Cost Recovery All All All All All All All All All Full Cost Pricing CSOs ** Cross Subsidies Report Completed Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Rate of Return (%) 9.4 14 8.6 12 8.8 9 12 8.3 See notes Notes Maryborough Livingstone Warwick Beaudesert Mount Isa Burdekin Douglas Burnett Whitsunday see notes For For For Against For Against For For ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF I I Council conducted two 2PT reports. The first recommended against implementation of a 2PT, the second recommended for the implementation of a 2PT. Business earns an ROR of 4.3%, however a CSO comprising 16% of revenue has not been independently costed. Removal of this CSO would result in a ROR of 1.3%. Councils with above 1000 but below 5000 connections, representing 6.41% of all water connections in Queensland Mareeba Bowen Emerald Calliope Hinchinbrook Atherton Kingaroy Cardwell Banana Belyando Jondaryan Charters Towers Gatton Crow's Nest Esk 4,685 4,587 4,473 4,392 4,378 4,207 4,142 4,001 3,840 3,423 3,375 3,314 3,302 3,176 2,950 Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done Done For For For For For For For Against For For For Against For For For For Against For For For For For Against For Against For Against For For For All All All Most All Most All Many See Notes Some All All All All All ICF I ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF I I No action taken ICF ICF ICF ICF ICF Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 9.7 9.6 9.2 8.5 11.4 8.9 0.1 9 8.7 See notes 14 11 9.1 5 7.5 Council's decision was reviewed by the QCA. QCA recommended a further report which also recommended a 2PT. Council again resolved against implementing a 2PT. Business has a target rate of 8.7%, however this includes a CSO comprising 55% of revenue that is as yet not independently costed. Unable to therefore list the FCR level. Activity generates positive return, however does not have a target ROR. Council has resolved to investigate the introduction of a 2PT for 2005/06 Attachment 4 – Page 2 Council Number of Water Connections 2,587 2,507 2,483 2,208 2,013 1,953 1,931 1,833 1,769 1,557 1,539 1,491 1,452 Two Part Tariff Report None Done Done Done Done Done Done None Done Done Report Recomm -endation N/A For For For Against For For N/A For For Council Resolution Full Cost Recovery All All All N/A All All All All All All Full Cost Pricing CSOs ** Cross Subsidies Report Completed No No No Yes No Yes No No No No Rate of Return (%) 17 9.4 9.1 N/A 31 9.5 16 11 6.5 9.4 Notes Roma Duaringa Stanthorpe Goondiwindi Broadsound Chinchilla Rosalie Murweh Boonah Fitzroy Balonne * Nanango Longreach N/A For For No resolution Against For For N/A For For ICF ICF ICF I I ICF ICF ICF ICF IF Insufficient information supplied to indicate either a ROR or level of FCR. High rate of return due to contributed assets being taken into account. Council has not independently costed the CSO which comprises 12% of revenue Done Done For Ambiguous For No resolution Against N/A For No resolution For N/A N/A see notes All See Notes ICF ICF No No 8.1 0.3 2PT tariff made no recommendations, council has not resolved either way. In regards to FCR, council did not provide sufficient details on the identification and basis for many of its costs. It is therefore not possible to identify the level of FCR implementation. Council has not substantiated the CSO or independently costed it. Council has not yet developed a policy framework for the identification, costing and funding of CSOs. However its draft budget has identified a CSO. Eacham Mount Morgan Wondai Herberton Pittsworth Cook Murgon Johnstone 1,319 1,312 1,302 1,177 1,148 1,043 1,019 NA Done None Done Done Done None Done Done Against N/A For For For N/A Ambiguous see notes All All Many All All All All Most ICF I I ICF ICF I ICF ICF No No No Yes No No No No 9.3 2 9.1 15 9.7 9.8 9.3 6.8 Council conducted a report on 2PT which recommended the design of a 2PT to be considered by council. * Data Collection for these councils did not occur as they are no longer eligible for payments from the Financial Incentive Package. Next years data collection will include these councils. ** The CSOs column is coded in the following fashion. "I" indicates that Council has a policy to Identify CSOs, "C" indicates that council has a policy to independently verify and cost CSOs, "F" indicates council has a policy to fund CSOs. Note that ICF does not indicate Council actually pays a CSO, merely that Council has in place a process to identify, cost and fund CSOs. The existence of CSOs should be checked against Attachment 5. Attachment 4 – Page 3 Attachment 5 – Local Government CSOs and Cross-Subsidies (Categorised by ACGL) Local Government Brisbane Has FCP been Implemented? Yes CSO Description Net Cost of CSO 4,614,287 5,087,644 146,051 Cross-Subsidy Description Consumer Class Value ($) CAPITAL CITY (UCC) Pensioner Remissions - Water Pensioner Remissions - Sewerage Combined Drains URBAN DEVELOPED VERY LARGE (UDV) Logan Toowoomba Redcliffe Cairns Yes Yes Yes Yes Water charges Council owned properties Maintenance of fire hydrants Service locations - Telstra etc. Other (including water for fire fighting purposes) Rates concessions provided to various community groups and rebates for leakages on internal properties. Maintenance of fire hydrants; headworks, pensioner remissions and rating concessions; community education initiatives; water leakage; effluent re-use; unserviced/uneconomical area. Reduced rental to community bodies. Provision of emergency, crisis care and 24 hour care. Provision of reduced rates for children sponsored by Education Department and by schools. Waste collection, disposal, minimisation, pensioner remissions, recycling rebate, recycling education. Programming, attracting theatrical performances, agency, council grants and setup/mode change costs; hiring of council's promotional marquees and tents, cinema facility. Maintenance of cemetery and burial of children. 2,935,585 530,000 40,695 20,675 523,152 1,777,000 9,000 155,000 285,000 1,612,000 186,000 283,000 Identified CSO such as fire hydrants not costed URBAN DEVELOPED LARGE (UDL) URBAN DEVELOPED MEDIUM (UDM) URBAN REGIONAL VERY LARGE (URV) Gold Coast Maroochy Yes Yes Councils 02-03 budget reflected that residential consumers of water services were paying less than the marginal cost of providing water. Residential 3,400,000 Attachment 5 – Page 1 Local Government Caloundra Has FCP been Implemented? Yes CSO Description Net Cost of CSO 5,218 40,846 70,000 88,983 2,645,718 1,315,825 36,498 558,601 167,360 570,744 174,434 116 98,041 28,522 151,872 2,969 625,324 Cross-Subsidy Description Consumer Class Value ($) URBAN REGIONAL LARGE (URL) Supply of water to fire hydrants Repair and replacement of fire hydrants Installation of raised reflective hydrant markers (cat's eyes) Maintenance and supply of water to beach showers, parks, ramps Greening of Townsville (Charities/Sporting Clubs) Pensioner Remissions & Second Pedestal Other Capital CSO Educational, recreational and city aesthetics purposes Council Services & Fire Service WATER Pensioner Discounts Other Rate Remissions WASTEWATER Pensioner Discounts Combined Line Charges (Operating) Combined Line Charges (Capital) Other Rate Remissions Raising Manholes (Capital) Mackay Townsville Yes Yes URBAN REGIONAL MEDIUM (URM) Bundaberg Cooloola Hervey Bay Rockhampton Yes Yes Yes Yes URBAN REGIONAL SMALL (URS) Aurukun Charters Towers Dalby Gladstone Goondiwindi Johnstone Maryborough Mornington Mount Isa Roma Torres Warwick No Yes Pensioner/Community, Community Donations, Effluent Reuse, Tourism Promotion, 461,000 Plant Subsidisation, Recycling Information not supplied Yes Subsidised Water Charges for Sporting Bodies 32,968 Transitional FCP Subsidy - Water 2,398,218 Transitional FCP Subsidy - Sewerage 1,215,117 No Yes Water and Sewerage 1,350 Yes Base water charge concessions - sporting and community bodies 35,000 No Mornington is unique in that it is subject to the Local Government (Aboriginal Lands) Act 1978. This means the council has lease arrangements with the Federal Government for 50 years and therefore the residents do not have to pay land rates. Therefore council does not charge rates and cannot balance CSO's and Cross Subsidies against discounts allowed for rates. However council does make a profit from it's Hotel/Tavern business and uses a proportion of these profits to provide CSO's and Cross Subsidies for council's other business activities. Yes No No Yes Concessions to community groups on uneconomic schemes 21,996 Attachment 5 – Page 2 Local Government Ipswich Pine Rivers Has FCP been Implemented? Yes Yes CSO Description Net Cost of CSO 15,000 3,082 222,000 171,830 5,000 85,000 90,671 75,000 Cross-Subsidy Description Consumer Class Value ($) URBAN FRINGE VERY LARGE (UFV) Water for Fire Fighting Purposes Concessions to Community/Non Profit Groups - Water Uneconomic Water Supply Extensions Communication Tower Rental Pensioner Discounts Concessions to Community Groups Community Safety - maintenance of fire hydrants Water Conservation - Waterwise program Extension uneconomical water supply to outlying community Water Concessions not for profit URBAN FRINGE LARGE (UFL) Caboolture Redland Beaudesert Noosa Thuringowa Yes Yes No Yes Yes URBAN FRINGE MEDIUM (UFM) Fire hydrant maintenance Pensioner discounts Uneconomical water supply to Rural, Rural/Residential outside the declared sewer area. Supply of water at reduced prices to Community Organisations Greening the City subsidised payments 34,750 111,500 3,116,000 20,000 1,539,290 URBAN FRINGE SMALL (UFS) Burnett Livingstone Atherton Banana Belyando Bowen Burdekin Calliope Cardwell Crow's Nest Douglas Emerald Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes RURAL AGRICULTURAL VERY LARGE (RAV) Giru Water Supply operating costs Pensioner concessions - water charges 102,972 Water Fire Service + Raw water for community services Uneconomical service supply Pensioner rebates Transitional FCP subsidy 696,987 57,000 145,000 40,000 124,000 Water - class not separated as all consumers are provided water at same rate. Price differential (cents/kl) Price differential (cents/kl) 101,948 Commercial Other 70,638 91,383 Attachment 5 – Page 3 Local Government Esk Has FCP been Implemented? Yes CSO Description Uneconomic supply of water - overall price subsidy Price concessions to Churches, halls, kindergartens and showgrounds - water and sewerage Reuse water (sewerage business activity) Provision of public dumping facilities (refuse business activity) Water - rates and pensioner discount, subsidies supply to schools and aged care facilities Sewerage - rates and pensioner discount, subsidies supply to schools and aged care facilities Concession on Water and Wastewater charges for community groups Fire Service Waterwise Access Concessions Cost of providing effluent to farmers Provision of reduced base water to community groups Net Cost of CSO 298,000 12,000 1,000 170,000 27,409 299,497 3,800 40,634 2,000 71,782 51,325 2,391 Cross-Subsidy Description Estimated cross-subsidy by Esk, Lowood and Toogoolawah sewerage users and Fernvale vacant land owners in the sewered area of Fernvale to all other Fernvale sewerage users at a 6% discount rate. Consumer Class Various Value ($) 23,000 Fitzroy Yes Gatton Hinchinbrook Jondaryan Kingaroy Laidley Mareeba Sarina Whitsunday Boonah Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Information not supplied Yes Yes Construction and integration of new water treatment facilities Transport (Rural Road Addressing) Water Supply (General Concessions, Fire Hydrants & Roadvale Water Board) Waste Water (General Concessions, Recycled Water) Solid Waste (Autofest, Community Organisations, Showgrounds & Parks) 950,000 15,500 15,000 7,600 1,200 RURAL AGRICULTURAL LARGE (RAL) Broadsound Chinchilla Duaringa Eacham Herberton Isis Mirani Nanango Rosalie Stanthorpe Wambo No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Uneconomical water and sewerage services Uneconomical service supply Blackbutt/Benarkin water supply Pension rebates (revenue foregone) Uneconomical Service Supply Reduced Headworks Charges Uneconomical Service Supply Pensioner Remission Price Concession 144,000 95,000 8,000 296,000 11,811 182,000 9,000 3,000 Uneconomical Service Supply Domestic 150,626 Attachment 5 – Page 4 Local Government Balonne Bauhinia Cambooya Clifton Cloncurry Cook Dalrymple Gayndah Inglewood Kilcoy Kilkivan Has FCP been Implemented? No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes CSO Description Net Cost of CSO Cross-Subsidy Description Consumer Class Value ($) RURAL AGRICULTURAL MEDIUM (RAM) Rolleston Water Supply In-house Administrative Functions 33,968 6,000 Water CSO Revenue Price subsidy to ensure affordable provision of essential services Price subsidy to for provision of all essential amenities/services Cost to provide transfer stations and refuse disposal facilities Cost to provide plant for emergency services Uneconomical Service Supply Industry Incentive Fire Service Price Concessions Sport, Recreation & Community Facilities Environment Management Water Supply and Sewerage 107,230 132,000 36,000 155,000 200,000 81,980 9,737 5,000 2,184 295,000 139,000 75,000 Kolan Millmerran No Yes Miriam Vale Monto Mount Morgan Mundubbera Murgon Murilla Nebo Peak Downs Pittsworth No Yes No Information not supplied No Yes No Yes Yes Fire Service Pensioner Rebates Uneconomical Service Supply Pension Remissions Community Facilities Fire Service Transitional FCP Subsidy Subsidised Aged-Care Facilities Uneconomical Service Supply Water CSO 6,000 7,000 30,000 3,000 96,000 3,000 54,000 5,000 154,252 129,181 Tara Taroom Tiaro Waggamba Wondai Woocoo No No Yes Yes Yes No water or sewerage service provided Attachment 5 – Page 5 Local Government Bendemere Biggenden Booringa Bungil Eidsvold Perry Warroo Has FCP been Implemented? No No Yes No Yes No Yes CSO Description Net Cost of CSO Cross-Subsidy Description Consumer Class Value ($) RURAL AGRICULTURAL SMALL (RAS) Supply to various community assets Maintenance of emergency/firefighting supplies Water supply and sewerage Cost of employing and training officer to assist the water supply and sewerage officer 101,536 63,395 23,633 RURAL REMOTE LARGE (RTL) Longreach Murweh Barcaldine Blackall Carpentaria Etheridge Flinders Jericho McKinlay Paroo Quilpie Richmond Winton No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Information not supplied Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No RURAL REMOTE MEDIUM (RTM) Revenue less expenditure surplus for CSO 38,132 RURAL REMOTE SMALL (RTS) Aramac Barcoo Boulia Bulloo Burke Tambo Croydon Diamantina Ilfracombe Isisford To provide an essential service at a reasonable cost to residents 111,658 RURAL REMOTE EXTRA SMALL (RTX) Water supply contribution from general revenue Sewerage supply contribution from general revenue Nil 207,000 75,000 Attachment 5 – Page 6 Attachment 6 – Local Government Tradewaste Charges (Categorised by ACLG) Local Government -by ACLG Brisbane Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? Yes Category A Category B Category C Category D Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge CAPITAL CITY (UCC) Minor trader with discharge <250kl/annum >250kl/annum & strength assumed equal to the domestic sewerage >250kl/annum & strength assumed less than half the domestic sewerage 20kg/day of BOD or TOC General Charge All categories Category A - fixed charge $240pa; Category B - $0.88/kl; Category C - $0.69/kl; Category D - $0.43/kl URBAN DEVELOPED VERY LARGE (UDV) Logan Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Medium strength/any volume or Low strength >500kl per annum High stength/any volume General General General Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Application fee new operators $145.00, Base charge current financial year $26.00, flat fee for treatment charge previous financial year $168.00. Application fee for new operators $145.00, Base charge current financial year $95.00, treatment charge for previous financial year $0.94/kl with a minimum overdue of $168.00. Application fee for new operators $145.00, Base charge current financial year $166.00, treatment charge for previous financial year $0.50/kl (volume charge) + tested strength of BOD ($0.60/kg) or tested strength of COD ($0.37/kg) + tested strength of NFR ($0.69/kg) + tested strength of any other pollutant over sewer admission limit, charged from zero ($0.57/kg). Fixed Forumula C=Q*k (Q annual volume kl) k unit charge rate various qualifiers URBAN DEVELOPED LARGE (UDL) Toowoomba Yes Category 1 Category 2a Category 2b Category 3a Category 3b Low strength <500kl per annum Low strength >500kl per annum Low strength >500kl that passes through 1 or more sewerage station High strength High strength that passes through 1 or more sewerage station General Charge Quantity charge Quantity & quality two tiered Category 1 Categories 2a & 2b Categories 3a & 3b URBAN DEVELOPED MEDIUM (UDM) Redcliffe No URBAN REGIONAL VERY LARGE (URV) Cairns Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume Trade waste permit fee Volume charge Strength charge All categories Category 2 Category 3 Flat charge $169 $0.52/kl after allowance BOD5 by weight $0.88/kg; Suspended Solids $0.57/kg Attachment 6 – Page 1 Local Government -by ACLG Gold Coast Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To All categories Basis for Determining Charge Low strength <150kl per annum * Low strength <300kl per annum * Low/medium strength >300kl per annum * Annual usage charge Quality charges > wastewater admission standards (Volume @ $1.00/kL) (NVSS @ $0.58/kg) (COD @ $1.00/kg) Maroochy Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/high volume; or high strength/low to medium volume * Low strength/low volume Annual Fee Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume (700mg/cod) Volume charge Strength charge All categories Categories 2 & 3 Category 3 $64.70 $0.50/kl BOD $0.93/kg + COD $0.44/kg + Suspended Solids $0.60/kg URBAN REGIONAL LARGE (URL) Caloundra Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume<500kl per annum Low strength/high volume>500kl per annum High strength/any volume Application fee Permit fee Additional Equivalent Arrestor charges Volume charges Quality Charges Mackay Yes Commercial/Industrial Trade waste charge (TWC) Over limit discharge All new generators Categories 1 & 2 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Commercial/Industrial Assessment of application $100.00 $340 includes administration, transport, treatment and disposal of trade waste Determine size of required trap and approx cleaning frequency and charge average $/litre rate. $ Charge is dependent upon number of factors relating to premises. $0.41/kl transport and treatment Discharge >300mg/l BOD and/or >300mg/l Suspended Solids - BOD $0.66/kg; Suspended Solids $0.56/kg Identified properties are assessed using the following formula: TWC ($) = 0.986 (D-300P)+0.15D (Stength Ratio - 1) Where: TWC = Charge for Waste Discharge (rounded off in dollars) D = Estimated discharge to sewer (as a percentage of the previous years metered water consumption) P = Number of pedestals All properties are currently assessed with a strength ratio of 1 Townsville Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume<500kl per annum Low strength/high volume>500kl per annum High strength/any volume Flat fee Volume Strength Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 $161.44 per annum $1.34/kl min. fee per annum $161.44 BOD5 - $1.39/kl; Suspended Solids - $1.61/kl; min. fee $161.44 per annum Attachment 6 – Page 2 Local Government -by ACLG Bundaberg Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge URBAN REGIONAL MEDIUM (URM) Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl High strength/high volume >500kl Approval Fee Volume and Quality Category 1 Category 2 & 3 $55 Category 2 Annual charge = annual volume x unit charge rate or minimum $165 (cost per kilolitre = $0.84) Category 3 Annual charge = annual volume x unit charge rate + annual volume x the unit charges for the average pollutants (mg/L) or minimum of $320 (cost per kilolitre = $0.84) Categories 1 = nil; Category 2 = $50.00 per annum; Category 3 based on individual assessment Assessment of Equivalent Arrestor Charge Capacity based Cooloola Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <500kl waste per year Low strength/high volume >500kl waste per year High strength/any volume General Equivalent Arrestor Charge Commercial Grinder All Categories All Categories All Categories Hervey Bay Rockhampton No Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <250kl/annum - BOD & Suspended Solids<300mg/l Low strength/high volume >250kl/annum BOD & Suspended Solids<300mg/l High strength/any volume - BOD & Suspended Solids>300mg/l but<600mg/l Permit General Permit Volumetric Agreement Volume and Quality Agreement Application Fee Inspection fees (Noncompliance & Sampling) Analytical Testing Fees Non-compliant penalty charge Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 All Categories Minimum charge $100 per annum Volume measured quarterly and charged at $0.40/kl ($100.00 per annum minimum fee) Quality measured quarterly and charged at Volume $0.40/kl, BOD $0.80/kg and Suspended Solids $0.95/kg $100 per application $75.00 per hour or part thereof All Categories All Categories Full cost of laboratory charges $1.00/kg x 1.2 URBAN REGIONAL SMALL (URS) Aurukun Charters Towers Dalby Gladstone No No Information not supplied Yes Domestic Commercial/Industrial Garbage Grinder Garbage Grinder (<0.5kw) Garbage Grinder (0.5kw to 1.5kw)) Domestic Comm or Ind. Comm or Ind. No charge $110.00 per annum per grinder $160.00 per annum per grinder Attachment 6 – Page 3 Local Government -by ACLG Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge Garbage Grinder Comm or Ind. (>1.5kw) Other approved Liquid Comm or Ind. Waste Permit to Discharge Comm or Ind. Licensed Contractor Discharge Licensed Contractor Discharge Application fee Septic tank waste Grease trap waste Strength charges Maryborough Mornington Mount Isa Roma Torres Warwick No No No No No Yes Category 3 Volume>1,000kl per annum Flow charge Strength charges Category 3 Category 3 Pump Septic Tanks All $215.00 per annum per grinder $60.00 per annum $1.20/kl with a minimum of the applicable annual charge. $52.00 per septic or $36.00/kl (BOD5>400mg/l) (septic and grey waste water) $2.60/kl with minimum of $16.00 (BOD5<400mg/l) (grey waste water) Goondiwindi Johnstone No Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume Category 3 Category 3 Category 3 Category 3 $105 $13/kl $80/kl Volume $0.30/kl; BODs $0.60/kl; Suspended Solids $0.70/kg; Minimum Fee $270 per annum Flat Rate per tank $0.17 per kl BOD = $0.18/kg; Suspended Solids = $0.15/kg URBAN FRINGE VERY LARGE (UFV) Ipswich Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume Application fee Annual charge Volumetric charge Strength charges Parameters All categories All categories Categories 2 & 3 Category 3 Category 1 & 2 $75; Category 3 $165 Category 1 $210; Category 2 $290; Category 3 $460 $0.88/kl (Tested Strength - Domestic Allowance) x vol = $/kg BOD $1.15/kg (allow 300mg/l);COD $0.83/kg (allow 600mg/l); Non-Filterable Residue $0.76/kg (allow 300mg/l); Sulphate $0.88/kg (allow 500mg/l); Total Nitrogen $0.80/kg (allow 60mg/l); Total Phosphorus $3.00/kg (allow 15mg/l) Base fee + quantity charge + quality charge Pine Rivers Yes Category 1 All strengths/any volume General Category 1 Attachment 6 – Page 4 Local Government -by ACLG Caboolture Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge URBAN FRINGE LARGE (UFL) Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume Application Fee Legal Agreement Fee Plan Assessment Fee Volume Discharge Fee Category 2 Category 3 Inspection Fee Swimming Pool Backwash Holding Tank Waste Redland Yes Category 1 Category 2 Low strength/any volume High strength/any volume General Food waste disposal units All categories Category 2 All categories Category 3 $68.00 $118.00 $68.00 Volume metered water usage minus 250kl minus 75kl/wc minus Industry Allowance x $0.71/kl; $0.52/kl Discharge + Tested Strength BOD ($1.45/kg) + Tested Strength NFR ($0.39/kg) + sulfate(0.34)/kg $38.00/hour (min fee $76.00) Volume Backwash Discharge x $0.52/kl $16.35/kl All categories All categories Septic tank waste $32.70/kl Grease interceptor $144.00/kl $161.90 + ($0.82/kLO + tested strength BOD $0.79/kg + tested strength NFR $0.36/kg + tested strength TOG $0.36/kg) $16.14 URBAN FRINGE MEDIUM (UFM) Beaudesert Noosa No Yes Minor High Volume Major Low strengh/low volume <300kl waste per year Low strengh/high volume >300kl waste per year No premises in this category at this time Annual Discharge Fee All categories Non compliance charge Inspection Application for permit Analysis Over Limit Discharge Thuringowa No Minor Generator All categories Minor & Major All categories Major Generator Minor - minimum charge $135<300kl+volume fee $0.30/kl>300kl per annum; Major minimum charge $280<300kl+volume fee $0.30/kl>300kl per annum Equivalent service charge $72.50 per half-hour Minor - $90; Major - $116 Actual cost of tests Minimum charge $280+$0.35/kl>300kl+BOD and Suspended Solids of $0.55/kg each URBAN FRINGE SMALL (UFS) Burnett Livingstone No No RURAL AGRICULTURAL VERY LARGE (RAV) Atherton Banana Belyando No No Yes Commercial No limit General Commercial $264 Fixed Attachment 6 – Page 5 Local Government -by ACLG Bowen Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Categories 1 & 2 Basis for Determining Charge Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum Fast food restaurants, bakeries and supermarkets Mechanical workshops Swimming pools Aged care, hospitals and motels Charge is volume based only - individual sites hold their own discharge licences with EPA Registration Category 1 $129.00 per annum; Category 2 $129.00 per annum + $0.73/kl >500kl Burdekin Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 2.1 Category 2.2 Category 2.3 Category 2.4 Annual charges Application fees Over limit Quantity charge Quality charge Inspection fee General Charge All categories All categories Category 2 Category 3 Category 3 All categories Category 3 flat fee per annum. Category 1 $50, Category 2 $60, Category 3 $450 $20.00 $0.42/kl over 500kl $0.42/kl from 0kl $0.55/kg BOD 5 + $0.22/kg Suspended Solids $60 per half hour or part thereof Trade waste system has 3 customers, charge is based on actual discharges over the previous 12 months, with the percent of total waste generated multiplied by full operating costs of trade waste system used to calculate annual rate for each user of the facility. Calliope Yes Category 3 Cardwell Crow's Nest Douglas Emerald No Information not supplied No Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume Low strength/high volume High strength/any volume Permit Fee Annual charges Volume charge All categories All categories Categories 2 & 3 Category 3 $50.00 $50.00 Category 2 - Base $0.90/kl; Category 3 - $0.68/kl COD $0.70/kg + Suspended Solids $0.50/kg Esk Fitzroy Gatton Hinchinbrook Jondaryan Kingaroy Laidley Mareeba Sarina Whitsunday No No No No No No Yes No Information not supplied No Category 2 Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum Strength charge General Charge Category 2 Water meter reading x $2.25 per 5,000L less floor washing of 6,643L per day Attachment 6 – Page 6 Local Government -by ACLG Boonah Broadsound Chinchilla Duaringa Eacham Herberton Isis Mirani Nanango Rosalie Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? No No No No No Yes No No No No Category 2 Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge RURAL AGRICULTURAL LARGE (RAL) Low strength/high volume >500kl Disposal Fee Category 2 Set down by Council's Budget Stanthorpe Wambo No Yes Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Low strength/low volume <500kl per annum Low strength/high volume >500kl per annum High strength/any volume Annual fee Volume Category 1 Categories 2 & 3 Flat fee $110 pa Category 2 - $0.55/kl to max of $330 pa; Category 3 - $0.33/kl, BOD5 $0.66/kg, Suspended Solids $0.28/kg, Max fee $330.00 pa RURAL AGRICULTURAL MEDIUM (RAM) Balonne Bauhinia Cambooya Clifton Cloncurry Cook Dalrymple Gayndah Inglewood Kilcoy Kilkivan Kolan No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No All customers Fixed Rate General All per annum Category 2 Commercial Laundries General Category 2 Unit allocation charge - $2,092.00 (20 units @ $104.60/unit) Attachment 6 – Page 7 Local Government -by ACLG Millmerran Miriam Vale Monto Mount Morgan Mundubbera Murgon Murilla Nebo Peak Downs Pittsworth Tara Taroom Tiaro Waggamba Wondai Woocoo Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? No No No No Information not supplied Yes No No No No No No No No No No Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge No category General No category $687.70 per annum for connection to Murgon Sewerage Scheme + $2.70/kl of trade waste RURAL AGRICULTURAL SMALL (RAS) Bendemere Biggenden Booringa Bungil Eidsvold Perry Warroo No No No No No No No RURAL REMOTE LARGE (RTL) Longreach Murweh No No Attachment 6 – Page 8 Local Government -by ACLG Barcaldine Blackall Carpentaria Etheridge Flinders Jericho McKinlay Paroo Quilpie Richmond Winton Any Trade Customer Waste fees or Categories charges? No No No No No No No No Information not supplied No Information not supplied Yes No No No No No Category 1 Category Description Type of Charge Category Charge Applies To Basis for Determining Charge RURAL REMOTE MEDIUM (RTM) RURAL REMOTE SMALL (RTS) Aramac Barcoo Boulia Bulloo Burke Tambo Low waste General Category 1 $140.00 per annum RURAL REMOTE EXTRA SMALL (RTX) Croydon Diamantina Ilfracombe Isisford No No No No * The category is based on a risk formula with this description being a guide only. Attachment 6 – Page 9