PLANNING : sustainable future A joint initiative of the Queensland Government and the South East

a sustainable future SEQ 2021 DISCUSSION PAPER MAY 2008 SEQ2021 a sustainable future A joint initiative of the Queensland Government and the South East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils Issues & Options for Infrastructure Coordination and Funding DISCUSSION PAPER MAY 2008 SEQ2021 a sustainable future A joint initiative of the Queensland Government and the South East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils This Discussion Paper is one of eleven prepared to explore some of the issues and options for South East Queensland (SEQ) over the next twenty years. Your comments, views and contributions on the issues and options outlined in this, and other SEQ 2021 Discussion Papers, are of real importance in planning the future of our region. Feedback can be forwarded to the SEQ 2021 team by freepost. The feedback you provide will be used to help develop strategic options for the future. Further Information The full set of SEQ 2021 Issues ands Options Discussion Papers The series includes Discussion Papers on the following policy areas:
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
• Arts and Cultural Development
• Centres and Residential Development
• Economic Development and Information and Communication Technologies
• Energy and Greenhouse
• Infrastructure Coordination and Funding
• Regional Landscape
• Social Justice and Human Services
• Recreation and Sport
• Sustainability Indicators
• Transport
For further information about any aspect of the SEQ 2021 Issues and Options consultations,
contact the SEQ 2021 Team. Have Your Say - Working Together Towards a Sustainable Region
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 1 SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND
____________________________
Discussion Paper May 2008
NOT COMMONWEALTH, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY
Disclaimer This discussion paper forms part of the output of the SEQ 2021 Project. The Regional Coordination Committee (RCC), which has responsibility for oversight of the project, believes that this paper provides options for consideration in moving toward more sustainable growth management in the Region. The production of the papers took place in an atmosphere where working group members were allowed to participate equally, openly and freely. It was not a process, which relied on votes. There will be elements of inconsistency between documents, which will need to be reconciled over time. While there is a general corporate ownership of the documents by the RCC there will be specific recommendations which individuals, groups or Government – State, Local or Commonwealth – will legitimately question or reject. It is crucial to note that no level of Government, nor the private sector, nor the various sectoral groups have had sufficient opportunity to consider the options of this paper. Thus the production of this paper does not, and should not be construed to imply that any participating sector supports this paper, but rather that the SEQ 2021 discussion papers form part of a group of documents enabling further detailed assessment and consideration during the review period. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES 3 DESIRED REGIONAL OUTCOME 3 POLICY OPTIONS SUMMARY 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 5
1.1 INTRODUCTION 5
1.2 PURPOSE 5
2.0 SCOPE 6
3.0 WHY IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION AND FUNDING 6
4.0 WHAT TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHY? 7
5.0 THE DESIRED REGIONAL OUTCOME 10
6.0 THE EXISTING SITUATION 10
6.1 THE ROLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT 10
6.2 STATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION & FUNDING 10
6.2.1 Broad Policy Settings 11
6.2.2 The Budget Process 11
6.2.3 CEO’s Committees 12
6.2.4 The State Infrastructure Plan 13
6.2.5 State Agency Strategic Planning 14
6.3 REGIONAL COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS 16
6.4 THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK UNDER IPA 19
6.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 20
7.0 KEY ISSUES AND POLICY OPTIONS 22
APPENDIX A: INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION AND FUNDING WORKING GROUP
MEMBERSHIP 32 APPENDIX B LIST OF REFERENCES 33 APPENDIX C: INDICATIVE REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA 34 APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS 38 Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this discussion paper is to present issues and options for infrastructure coordination and funding in South East Queensland. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Improved infrastructure planning and coordination at the local Level. The efficiency of infrastructure delivery could be improved through the increased emphasis on regional and subregional level coordination and evaluation of infrastructure proposals. Coordination of Infrastructure at the sub regional and local levels. Improved coordination between State infrastructure providers and local governments could result in better outcomes for the community from the provision of State and local government infrastructure. Need to use consistent growth assumptions. Growth projections based on population growth and residential land supply take up are used in the region. However, employment projections and data on industrial land supply and take up rates are also critical to efficient infrastructure planning and delivery. Preservation of key infrastructure corridors and sites. Rapid urban growth in South East Queensland, combined with increasing pressure from competing land uses eg conservation, is making it more difficult and costly to identify and preserve suitable corridors and major sites for network infrastructure such as transport, telecommunications and power supply. Infrastructure funding. Population growth and changing demographics mean that there is significant demand for ongoing investment in infrastructure to meet the changing needs of the community. At the same time it is becoming more difficult to fund infrastructure development because of the restrictions placed on public spending and borrowing at all levels of government.
Private sector involvement. The private sector is able to introduce some efficiencies into the infrastructure planning and delivery process. However, the private sector has a number of concerns about the implementation of the Public-Private Partnerships model that may have constrained the level of private sector involvement to date. DESIRED REGIONAL OUTCOME It may be an appropriate that this Desired Regional Outcome be considered for inclusion in SEQ2021: Infrastructure is properly planned, funded and coordinated to ensure that it: Is provided in a timely fashion to meet reasonable service demands; Is provided cost-effectively; Uses best available technology and demand management techniques to promote sustainability; and Furthers the achievement of the preferred regional settlement pattern, and agreed regional economic, social and environmental outcomes. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 4 POLICY OPTIONS SUMMARY The RCC’s responsibility for regional infrastructure coordination should be revised/reinforced and a Regional Infrastructure Plan should be prepared. The RCC should develop criteria for prioritising projects at the regional level. The Regional Infrastructure Plan should inform other processes of government The RCC should oversee the implementation of the Regional Infrastructure Plan, and liaise with State agencies and local governments regarding its implementation. Align RMF boundaries to coincide with the SEQ sub-regions, and better integrate these groups to improve local area infrastructure planning and coordination. Use local government Priority Infrastructure Plans as the principal mechanism for coordinating State and local government infrastructure. More rigorous and transparent use of the community infrastructure designation process to ensure the achievement of desired local outcomes. Use the regional planning process to identify key areas undergoing significant growth,
and investigate the establishment arrangements involving State and local government to ensure land use and infrastructure planning is properly coordinated. Prepare and adopt consistent regional growth assumptions Monitor industrial and commercial land supply and take-up. Identify key infrastructure corridors in broad terms, undertake necessary detailed studies. Review the community infrastructure designation requirements under IPA. Investigate the potential to require identified infrastructure corridors and sites to be retained in low intensity zones in planning schemes. Develop options for the use of land and treatments in planning schemes to preserve corridors and sites for future use. All infrastructure providers should be required to develop regional demand management strategies. Expand the use of user pays funding mechanisms. The regional infrastructure plan should identify those infrastructure projects that are potentially suitable for private sector funding. Investigate the establishment of new institutional arrangements that will improve efficiency and ensure existing funding is used to deliver optimum services. Review the constraints on borrowing to finance social and environmental infrastructure. Encourage the coordination of service levels and pricing mechanisms between local governments and across State agencies. Hold an annual “infrastructure summit” involving key infrastructure provider agencies, local government and the private sector. Identify projects suitable for private sector delivery in the regional Infrastructure plan and the State infrastructure Plan. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 5
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This document is the Infrastructure Coordination and Funding Discussion Paper – one of eleven
such papers produced for public review as a part of the South East Queensland 2021 (SEQ2021)
regional planning process, which is currently underway. This SEQ2021 regional planning process
seeks to achieve ecological sustainability, which includes balancing our natural, built, social, and economic environments, so that they can be enjoyed by future generations. SEQ2021 is a new phase of regional policy development for South East Queensland. SEQ2021 is both a review of the regional policies currently in place in the Regional Framework for Growth Management (RFGM) 2000 and a look ahead to identify and develop new policies to meet the vision for South East Queensland 2021. Infrastructure Coordination and Funding has been identified as an area where new policy needs to be developed. SEQ2021 is jointly funded by the Queensland State Government and the South East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils. SEQ2021 is overseen by the Regional CoordinationCommittee (RCC). The RCC incorporates representatives from Local, State and Commonwealth Governments and the SEQ2021 Regional Non-Government Sector Committee. SEQ2021 is a partnership based planning process which seeks to reflect the diversity of interests and values of the Governments and communities of the SEQ region. To this end SEQ2021 works through representative committee structures and will consult widely with the communities of SEQ. Infrastructure Coordination and Funding has been identified as an area where new policy needs to be developed. The Infrastructure Coordination and Funding Working Group was formed to take a strategic view of infrastructure coordination and funding issues for South East Queensland over the next 20 years. The Working Group has endeavoured to identify the important of infrastructure coordination and funding issues affecting South East Queensland, and following broad community consultation develop a discussion paper that sets out a vision, desired regional outcomes, strategies and priority actions. This Paper documents the findings of the Infrastructure Coordination and Funding Working Group in relation to the following tasks:
Examine the current sectoral position and trends including relevant policies and actions in the RFGM 2000 and other plans and strategies, identifying any constraints and opportunities, conflicts and gaps; Identify current and future desired regional outcomes and principles in relation to recreation and sport issues; Identify the main issues (problems and opportunities) that will arise in South East Queensland over the next 20 years in achieving these outcomes and identify strategy options for dealing with these. 1.2 PURPOSE There are eleven (11) SEQ2021 Policy Working Groups operating within the current regional planning process, and all are focused upon the production of a discussion paper for public review. Importantly, these Policy Working Groups must seek to achieve some level of integration and consistency across and within their documents and proposals. The Policy Working Groups include: Infrastructure Coordination and Funding Working Group (managing the production of this paper) Recreation and Sport Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 6 Social Justice and Human Services Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee IRTP Implementation Group Energy and Greenhouse Centres and Residential Development Economic Development and Information Technology Cultural Development Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Involvement Sustainability Indicators In preparing this paper the ICFWG has drawn primarily on the expertise and experience of its members (see Appendix A), and has also reviewed a number of relevant reports and studies prepared on the issue both in South East Queensland and elsewhere (see Appendix B). 2.0 SCOPE The ICFWG’s role in the SEQ2021 process is to provide a strategic, cross-sectoral overview of the infrastructure delivery process, to identify issues and options for improving the process, and to recommend appropriate policies, principles, processes and structures to improve the coordination and funding of infrastructure in the SEQ region. The ICFWG is not intended to identify or evaluate specific infrastructure needs or proposals. Where appropriate this will be done by one of the other sector specific working groups or committees involved in the SEQ2021 process (eg the SEQROC Waste and Recycling Group, or
the Integrated Regional Transport Plan Implementation Group). 3.0 WHY IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION AND FUNDING The State Government’s capital works program in the 2002-03 Budget is $4.837 billion, of which around $2.7 billion is to be spent on infrastructure in South East Queensland. The Commonwealth Government and Local Governments also have significant capital expenditure budgets (for example, Brisbane City Council’s capital expenditure in the 2002-03 Budget is $353.4 million). Even small improvements in the efficiency with which capital works can be delivered will result in significant cost savings to the community. Experience has shown that improvements in infrastructure coordination and funding will have significant benefits to the community through reduced capital and operating costs, improvedaccessibility and reduced travel costs. Also, the provision of large infrastructure items such as a new or upgraded motorway, railway line, or major entertainment or cultural facility can change where and how people choose to live and work, and what types of industries locate in the region and where. Coordinating the timing and location of infrastructure items supplied by different providers can result in better outcomes than could be achieved by the single providers working alone. Some examples: the coordinated approach to the provision of infrastructure to the Australia TradeCoast initiative (formerly the Gateway Ports) has resulted in major economic benefits to the region. This could not have been achieved by the Commonwealth, State or local government working alone; the timely provision of a school in a new urban growth area can defer or even obviate the need to increase road capacity; a coordinated approach to infrastructure delivery can result in co-location of human services infrastructure (eg. Centrelink, health clinics, library etc) with reduced capital Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 7 costs, improved accessibility for the community and a more manageable transport task for other infrastructure agencies. In summary an improved infrastructure coordination process can result in the following benefits for the region: use of major infrastructure investments to reinforce the agreed preferred settlement pattern; more efficient capacity utilisation of economic and social infrastructure provided by a range of provider agencies; co-location of social infrastructure with improved access and sharing of some facilities; and capital cost savings through better demand management. 4.0 WHAT TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHY? Traditionally infrastructure was considered to comprise only hard or engineering types of infrastructure such as roads and pipelines. Infrastructure is now thought of more broadly as fixed capital assets that provide services to a community. This definition encompasses a wide range of different types of infrastructure including engineering
infrastructure, social infrastructure such as schools universities, hospitals, cultural and recreational
facilities; and environmental infrastructure such as conservation areas, riparian vegetation corridors and water quality control devices. For convenience, in this paper, these infrastructure
types will be referred to as economic, social and environmental infrastructure. All three of these
infrastructure types are equally important to maintaining the quality of life in the region and are
regarded as “infrastructure” for the purposes of this paper. There are many other ways of classifying infrastructure. For example the State Infrastructure Plan (SIP) focuses on the infrastructure required for future economic growth (transport, energy, water, telecommunications, innovation and technology infrastructure, and skills training and education).
These types of infrastructure are referred to as “economic infrastructure” (a combination of certain elements of engineering infrastructure and social infrastructure described above) that are considered important in terms of promoting economic development. The balance infrastructure that provides facilities and services to the community (eg schools, public housing, health care infrastructure) is referred to in the SIP as “social infrastructure”.
Another way of classifying infrastructure is to look at its role in the community – whether the infrastructure provides a high level of “social” benefit (i.e. provides a certain level of service or opportunity for all in the community such as schools, police, emergency services, libraries, major open space); or a high level of “private” benefit (i.e. serves mainly the direct users or properties involved such as water supply, sewerage, drainage, telecommunication services, power supply).
In practice there is a continuum of infrastructure between these two extremes, and while helpful in considering the funding arrangements for infrastructure (infrastructure with a high “private” benefit is more suitable for a user pays arrangement while infrastructure with a high “social” benefit is normally funded by the whole community i.e. by government), all of these types of infrastructure are important to community wellbeing and are an integral regional planning consideration. A third way of classifying infrastructure is by its service catchment. Table 1 shows a typical catchment-based classification of infrastructure by regional (or metropolitan), sub-regional and local service catchments. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 8 TABLE 1: CATCHMENT BASED TYPOLOGY OF INFRASTRUCTURE Metropolitan (or region) wide infrastructure Regional open space systems Regional nature conservation and environmental protection (eg water quality) areas Water harvesting Bulk waste water treatment State highways Major railways Universities Airports Ports Sub-regional infrastructure Trunk hydraulics Intermediate water storage/treatment Major water quality control devices TAFE’s Hospitals Sub-regional/district level open space Sub-regional/district level nature conservation and environmental protection areas High schools (Bus) Public transport Major culture/recreation facilities Arterial roads Major sub-arterial roads Solid waste disposal Local infrastructure Local water reticulation, sewerage network Distributor/collector roads Water quality control devices Primary schools Community health centres Neighbourhood based family and community services Local parks Local nature conservation and environmental protection areas Transport interchanges Transfer stations and recycling depots Source: Adapted from Urban Development Coordination Unit, Queensland Department of Housing, Local Government & Planning, 1994 The regional and sub-regional levels of infrastructure are the “big ticket” items both in terms of cost and the impact their location and operation could have on the nature of the region (eg travel patterns, directions of growth, development densities and costs of servicing development). In contrast, “local” infrastructure tends to follow rather than shape development patterns. The cost of local infrastructure items is also generally less than the higher-level infrastructure on a one-off basis, although the cumulative costs across the region are significant. The benefits of infrastructure coordination at the local level can also be significant. For example, the provision of access to services (and employment and other activities) through the timely provision of infrastructure at the local and sub-regional level can reduce overall travel demand and result in cost savings by deferring demand for new or upgraded transport infrastructure.
In view of the regional nature of the SEQ2021 project, the ICFWG considered that its primary focus should be on the coordination and funding of the regional and sub-regional infrastructure levels, but some consideration should also be given to potential improvements to the infrastructure coordination process at the local level. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 9 The SEQ Regional Resource Unit has previously developed a set of regional infrastructure criteria that were used to identify infrastructure that is significant from a regional planning perspective (see Appendix C). These criteria require review and refinement but provide an example of the range of infrastructure that should be considered for regional planning and coordination purposes. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 10 5.0 THE DESIRED REGIONAL OUTCOME Based on its consideration of the circumstances and issues described in the following sections of this report, the ICFWG suggests that this may be an appropriate Desired Regional Outcome to be considered for inclusion in SEQ2021: Infrastructure is properly planned, funded and coordinated to ensure that it: Is provided in a timely fashion to meet reasonable service demands; Is provided cost-effectively; Uses best available technology and demand management techniques to promote sustainability; and Furthers the achievement of the preferred regional settlement pattern, and agreed regional economic, social and environmental outcomes. 6.0 THE EXISTING SITUATION The purpose of this section is to briefly describe the current arrangements for infrastructure funding and coordination at the State and regional level to provide a basis for considering how these arrangements may be improved. The information is weighted towards the State Government and existing state and regional coordination mechanisms because of the ICFWG’s focus on the provision of infrastructure at the regional and sub-regional levels.

6.1 THE ROLE OF THE COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT The Commonwealth Government’s role in the planning, coordination and funding of infrastructure has changed drastically over recent years. The allocation of GST revenue to the States has resulted in a major shift away from tied grants to untied funding. The Commonwealth has only limited interest in planning and coordination issues at the regional and lesser scale, and tends to focus on broad national policy settings leaving considerable flexibility in the delivery mechanisms. The Commonwealth Government’s proposed new transport and infrastructure policy “Auslink” is a demonstration of this approach. Auslink will focus on the strategic national transport network that provides national and interregional connectivity. It is intended to provide a broad-based guide to transport decision making, to attract more private sector more private sector investment, and to provide the Commonwealth Government with better opportunities to negotiate the implementation of national priorities.
In urban areas the Commonwealth Government’s focus will be on improving transport connections to ports and airports. The Auslink Green Paper makes it clear that the Commonwealth will not be investing in urban public transport, regarding this as a State responsibility that should be financed out of GST revenue.
This approach suggests that the Commonwealth Government is unlikely to participate fully in
regional and sub-regional infrastructure planning and coordination issues except where they
involve matters of national strategic significance (such as the strategic national transport network including road and rail links to seaports and airports). 6.2 STATE ARRANGEMENTS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION & FUNDING With a total capital works program of $4.837 billion in 2002-03 (including approximately $2.7 billion in South East Queensland) the State Government is the major infrastructure provider in Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 11 Queensland. The principal elements of the government’s infrastructure funding and coordination arrangements are described in the following sections of this report.
6.2.1 Broad Policy Settings
The Queensland Government operates under a Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility prepared under the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. The Charter sets out the Government’s commitments to the Queensland public, and how the Government will report on the outcomes of its activities. In addition to the Managing for Outcomes priorities set out below, the Charter includes five fiscal objectives: Competitive tax environment Affordable service provision Capital funding Managing financial risk Building the State’s net worth. The capital funding objective is clearly relevant to infrastructure funding and coordination issues:
Borrowings or other financial arrangements will only be undertaken for capital investments and only where these can be serviced within the operating surplus, consistent with maintaining a AAA credit rating. The implications of this objective for infrastructure funding are discussed in Section 7 below. Managing for Outcomes (MFO) is the financial management framework that has been adopted by the Queensland Government to ensure that the social, economic and environmental outcomes for Queensland communities are optimised through the efficient and effective management of available government resources, strategic alliances with industry and engagement with communities. MFO includes whole-of-Government outcomes, outcome indicators and key outcome measures linked to the Government’s 5 Priorities:
Priority 1: More jobs for Queensland – skills and innovation – The Smart State
Priority 2: Safer and more supportive communities
Priority 3: Community engagement and a better quality of life
Priority 4: Valuing the environment
Priority 5: Building Queensland’s regions.
Under MFO State agencies are required to budget, monitor and report on the efficiency and effectiveness of services delivered against these priorities.
6.2.2 The Budget Process
The Budget process is the method by which the Government:
Articulates fiscal imperatives and principles;
Sets the strategic direction of its finances over the medium term;
Establishes and communicates its resource allocation decisions for the fiscal
year; and Reports on actual (or estimated actual) outcomes and outputs.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 12 Section 21 of the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1997 requires the Treasurer to present to the Legislative Assembly a Bill for an annual Appropriation Act indicating proposed expenditure. The budget papers, other than Appropriation Bills, are of an explanatory nature for the benefit of the Parliament and the community. The budget process is also a mechanism wherein departments communicate to the Government their funding requirements for the required outputs, measure and report on their performance, and provide other performance information to improve future service delivery. The departments’ outputs must align to the priorities of the Government. Most elements of the budget process are carried out on a rolling twelve-month (calendar) cycle. Some elements, such as departmental evaluations and development of performance measures, are ongoing in nature and extend beyond a twelve-month time span. The details of the budget process may change each year, however key tasks remain relatively consistent year to year. Ministers provide budget submissions to the Government to assist in making resource allocation decisions. Through the budget process, the Government also considers the level of investment to be made in departments to ensure they have the capacity to deliver the specified outputs in a cost effective manner. Where there is a whole of government initiative, a ‘lead’ department will have the responsibility to develop a submission and consult with other departments involved in that initiative. Following its budget deliberations, the Government advises the responsible Ministers and associated departments of its decisions. These outcomes are documented in the various budget papers that include: Treasurer’s budget speech that is formally titled ‘Appropriation Bill Second Reading Speech’; Budget statement that outlines highlights, strategies and objectives and includes the budget financial statements and capital program, and the economic and revenue outlook for the State including outlook, strategy and performance;
Capital statement which outlines the capital outlays by department and region;
Ministerial Portfolio Statements which are source documents for Estimates
Committees and include information on the budget of each department; and
Various budget related papers such as the Regional Budget Statements, which provide an overview of the Government’s policy direction.
Departments monitor and report to Government their progress in delivering against the agreed output performance targets. They will also monitor their progress in meeting agreed financial performance targets set within their budgeted financial statements.
6.2.3 CEO’s Committees
During 2001-02 five Chief Executive Officer (CEO) committees were established as the key policy coordination mechanism to implement the State Government’s priorities by strengthening cross-agency policy implementation. The five committees are:
Governance
Human Services
Land and Resources
Law and Justice
Employment, Economic Development and Infrastructure. The Policy Division within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet provides a Secretariat for each Committee. The Employment, Economic Development and Infrastructure CEO Committee (EED&I CEO Committee) appears to be the most relevant for the issues under consideration in this paper and is described in greater detail. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 13 The EED&I Committee membership comprises the CEOs of 15 State Government departments and agencies (including State Development, Education, Main Roads, Transport, Natural Resources and Mines, Public Works, Local Government and Planning, Treasury and Premier and Cabinet). The Committee is supported by Economic Policy, Policy Division, Department of Premier and Cabinet. A number of Working Groups have been established under each of the 5 CEO Committees to progress various aspects of the CEO Committee's work plans. For example, the EED&I CEO Committee has some 10 Senior Officials Working Groups feeding into it. These include the following interdepartmental working groups (and Chairs):
Public Private Partnerships (DSD)
Implementation of the State Infrastructure Plan (DSD)
Disaster Mitigation in Economic Development, Infrastructure and Land Use (DES)
Implementation of the Smart State (DIIE)
Skills Development (DET)
Implementation of the Strategy for Growing Tourism (DTRFT)
Support Government Initiatives to Grow Queensland's Aviation Industry (DSD)
Sustainable Aquaculture Industry Development (DSD)
Implementation of the Committee's Regional Action Project Initiative (DLGP)
Implementation of the Government's Trade Strategy (DSD)
As shown by the working groups structure, the Employment, Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee is responsible, among other things, for the implementation of the State Infrastructure Plan.
6.2.4 The State Infrastructure Plan
The State Infrastructure Plan (SIP) was prepared by the Department of State Development and released in November 2001. It provides a framework to guide long-term economic infrastructure development throughout Queensland. The SIP has two components. The Strategic Directions 2001 policy document provides strategic guidance for the next 5 years of economic infrastructure planning by all areas of Government and the private sector. It includes:
An analysis of the policy and institutional issues associated with the delivery of each infrastructure class and identifies key state-wide strategies necessary to improve efficiency of delivery; An analysis of each region (the SIP region for South East Queensland excludes Toowoomba City but is otherwise the same as the SEQ2021 region) to identify potential economic development opportunities and the critical infrastructure required to support economic development. The second component of the SIP is the annual Implementation Plans that report progress in implementing the SIP, and descriptions of relevant projects and programs. The annual Implementation Plans also comprise of two parts: Statewide Action Plans and Regional Infrastructure Strategies. The fundamental objective of the Regional Infrastructure Strategies is to “provide a clear understanding of the regional infrastructure requirements of each region”. They are intended to set out a program of investigations and committed projects which over time will become a rolling program with a five-year timeframe.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 14 Consultation on the development of the Regional Infrastructure Strategies will be facilitated through the State Development Centres with support from the Office of the Deputy Coordinator General (ODCOG). The Regional Infrastructure Strategies are intended to be integrated with the plans and policies developed by regional bodies such as the SEQ Regional Coordination Committee, Regional Managers’ Forums as well as the forward plans of the State’s key infrastructure agencies. The CEOs Committee on E, ED & I is responsible for oversighting implementation of the SIP. This Committee is supported by a Senior Officials Working Group (SOWG) on SIP Implementation, chaired by ODCOG. The ODCOG consults annually with regional stakeholders and infrastructure providers on implementation of the SIP, and together with members of the SOWG (comprised of infrastructure agencies) examines relevant projects for inclusion in the SIP. Projects are then taken forward for consideration and endorsement by the CEOs Committee on E, ED & I. The projects are then progressed through Government, utilizing the approvals and funding procedures, including Budget consideration, appropriate to each infrastructure class. Consultation arrangements for SEQ have been evolving over the past 18 months and ODCOG is about to commence discussions with the SEQROC Economic Development Working Group about how the two groups can work more closely in identifying the critical infrastructure required to support economic development across the region. These discussions may provide an opportunity for improved coordination of economic infrastructure in South East Queensland, linking in to the existing approval processes under the SIP.
The SIP is clearly a major step forward in the Government’s efforts to achieve a better coordinated and integrated framework for the provision of economic infrastructure across a range of infrastructure types and provider agencies including the private sector. The Regional Infrastructure Strategies in particular appear to provide a useful mechanism by which broader infrastructure coordination objectives could be progressed.

6.2.5 State Agency Strategic Planning Agency Corporate Plans
Under section 17 of the Financial Management Standard, each department is required to develop strategic and operational plans. A department’s strategic plan is to cover a period of at least four years. This plan should outline:
The department’s purpose, role, goals and outputs;
Potential impact of key issues on the department’s operations and achieving the
Government’s social and fiscal objectives; and
Ways in which the agency intends to achieve its goals and outputs and assist in
achieving the Government’s social and fiscal objectives.
These plans are to be developed in consultation with the relevant Minister, the Treasurer and other relevant persons. Further, the department is required to give the relevant Minister and Treasurer a statement of major policy changes and consequential resource implications resulting from the proposed strategic plan. A department’s operational plan must provide for the outputs that the department intends to deliver during the plan’s timeframe. The plan must include details about output performance measures that allow the chief executive to assess the agency’s performance Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 15 in delivering the outputs. These plans should be available for distribution before the start of the timeframe to which they relate.
Capital Investment Strategic Plans Capital Investment Strategic Plans (CISPs) are the asset component of the agency strategic planning process and provide an outline of the strategic direction of asset management for an agency. On a whole of government basis, CISPs are designed to facilitate coordination of investment intentions between agencies and within overarching government policies, such as agreed regional planning policies. Guidelines for the preparation of CISPs were published in November 2000. The Financial Management Standard requires departments to develop an asset strategic plan, or CISP, covering a period of at least four years. The CISP must provide for: Analysing the key issues that may influence the department’s requirements for assets in the medium to long term; Analysing the appropriateness of existing assets in relation to the department’s strategic plan and needs of its clients; Identifying the need for new assets and developing strategies to meet the needs; Identifying and developing strategies for achieving and maintaining the appropriate level of operational performance for assets and maintaining physical assets in an appropriate condition; and Developing strategies for disposing of assets that are surplus to the department’s requirements. Under the Financial Management Standard, the CISP may be incorporated into a
department’s strategic plan where the department’s investment in assets is not expected to exceed $30 million over any four consecutive financial years and where the relevant Minister approves. Where a department’s intended investment in assets exceeds $30 million, the department should follow the CISP guidelines and prepare a separate asset strategic plan. CISPs are used by a range of stakeholders such as responsible Ministers, the Government and various State departments including Queensland Treasury, Department of Premier and Cabinet and the Coordinator General (Department of State Development). Assistance in the development of a CISP can be sought from Queensland Treasury and a range of State departments that can provide specialist advice. Capital Investment Plans are developed on an annual basis and submitted for consideration by the Government as part of the annual budget process for approval. These plans should align with the strategic direction outlined in the CISP.
The outcomes of the Government’s deliberations are documented in the:
Capital Acquisition Statement in the Department’s Ministerial Portfolio Statement;
Capital Statement that forms part of the State Budget documentation (which was
Budget Paper No. 4 in 2002-03); and
Regional Budget Statements, which detail capital works on a regional basis.
CISPs have the potential to provide a useful mechanism through which infrastructure provision could be coordinated to support the implementation of the RFGM. One of the advantages of CISPs from an infrastructure coordination perspective is that they can be sufficiently forward looking to enable major infrastructure projects of regional significance to be influenced at an early stage in the planning process. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 16 .

6.3 REGIONAL COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS
Regional Coordination Committee/RFGM The Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) is the primary advisory and coordination body responsible for overseeing the implementation of regional planning in South East Queensland. The RCC is recognised as the Regional Planning Advisory Committee for South East Queensland under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA).
The RCC is chaired by the Minister for Local Government and Planning and includes:
the Ministers for State Development; Transport and Main Roads; Environment; Families;
and Natural Resources and Mines;
the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and the Chairs of the three Sub-Regional Organisations of
Councils within South East Queensland;
a representative of the Commonwealth Government; and
the Chair of the Regional Non-Government Sector Committee.
The Terms of Reference for the RCC state (inter alia) that the RCC will:
facilitate the development of a sub-regional infrastructure priorities program, and facilitate efficient, coordinated and timely provision of adequate infrastructure. One of the principles for the region’s Institutional and Implementation Arrangements set out in the SEQ RFGM 2000 is that: “The Regional Framework for Growth management should provide a framework and context for:…-coordinated planning and infrastructure programs for all spheres of government and the non-Government sectors.”.
This section of the RFGM2000 also sets out the manner in which infrastructure coordination in
SEQ should be achieved as follows:
“Coordination of infrastructure provision by agencies in all spheres of government and relevant
non-government agencies should be undertaken to support the implementation of the RFGM. This
should be based on the following components:
all infrastructure provision agencies should work towards development of long-term infrastructure planning programs which are consistent with the RFGM;
At the State level, the Capital Investment Strategic Plans (CISPs), Government Asset Management System (GAMs), State Infrastructure Plan (SIP) and associated coordination mechanisms should facilitate the preparation of infrastructure investment plans by individual agencies that are consistent with the RFGM;
the development of appropriate arrangements should ensure Commonwealth infrastructure investment decisions in South East Queensland support the implementation of the RFGM;
the SEQ 2001 RRU, in conjunction with the Departments of Premier and Cabinet and State Development, should convene annual sub-regional infrastructure forums of Local, State and Commonwealth Government infrastructure agencies, and non-government infrastructure and service providers where appropriate, to coordinate activities at this level; and
using the information from the above forums, the SEQ 2001 RRU, in conjunction with the Departments of Premier and Cabinet and State Development, should develop regional infrastructure priority plans for endorsement by the RCC and forwarding to the committee of Cabinet responsible for infrastructure coordination.”
The membership and functions of the RCC are such that it should play a key role in identifying and evaluating regional infrastructure proposals for South East Queensland, and providing advice to the State Government on regional infrastructure coordination, prioritisation and funding issues. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 17 The SEQ Regional Resource Unit (RRU) has attempted to progress this infrastructure coordination role in a number of ways. One of the approaches taken by the RRU was to convene annual subregional infrastructure forums. This was a complex and resource intensive process that provided only limited coordination benefits through improved information exchange between agencies and spheres of government.
As a result of this and other difficulties, including resource constraints, the RCC is not currently performing the infrastructure coordination role set out in RFGM2000. Other than the processes
outlined above for the SIP, there does not appear to be any current infrastructure coordination processes between agencies and spheres of government at the regional level. Nevertheless, if improved infrastructure coordination is to be achieved, it can only be done effectively at the regional level (viz the regional level approach adopted in the SIP), and the RCC and the regional planning framework seem the most logical process and structure to achieve this in South East Queensland.
Local Governments/SEQROC/Sub-ROC’s The local governments in South East Queensland are major infrastructure providers particularly in the areas of roads and traffic management, community/cultural/recreational facilities, and water cycle infrastructure including water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, and stormwater collection and disposal.The two most populous local governments, Brisbane City and Gold Coast City budgeted for capital expenditures of $353 million and $162 million respectively in 2002-03. As the region’s local governments have grown in population and complexity, and their rate bases have expanded they have become responsible for larger and more complex infrastructure projects. For example over recent years Brisbane City Council has had the primary carriage of a number of major projects including the Inner-City Bypass, Coronation Drive upgrading, Inner Northern Busway, and Waterworks Road transit lanes. Brisbane City is currently in the investigation stages of two other major projects: the “Green Bridge” proposed to link Dutton Park and the University of Queensland campus at St Lucia, and a proposal for a north-south bypass tunnel between Woolloongabba and Bowen Hills. The important role played by the larger local governments in the planning and delivery of major infrastructure in the region highlights the need for good coordination between State and local governments, and between adjoining local governments.
The 18 local governments in South East Queensland formed the South East Queensland Regional
Organisation of Councils (SEQROC) in 1991 to provide a forum for coordinating their involvement in the SEQ 2001 regional planning process. The involvement in regional planning and the various strategies that have been developed under the RFGM remains one of SEQROC’s primary roles. SEQROC’s objectives include (inter alia):
Fostering cooperation on issues of mutual concern to members Formulating policies and strategies from which all member councils may act collaboratively in determining complementary plans for the coordination of growth and management of change. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 18 Another major role for SEQROC is that of addressing cross-boundary issues between councils. To facilitate these roles SEQROC has established a number of working groups, networks and project groups. There are currently 13 working groups operating under the SEQROC umbrella including the following:
Planning
Waste and Recycling
Environmental Management
Transport
Economic Development.
SEQROC is divided into 4 sub-regional organizations of councils (subROCs) whose members include the local governments within the particular sub-region. Although the Tweed Shire Council is not a member of SEQROC, it is a member of SouthROC because of the common interests between it and the other SouthROC members. Brisbane City comprises a sub-region in its own right in recognition of its size and central position in the region, and its important role as a major infrastructure and service provider. For example it is the only local government in the region that operates a significant public transport service. Each SubROC holds regular meetings and reviews issues important or unique to the region. A number of sub-regional plans and strategies have been developed or are underway. Regional Managers’ Forums Regional Managers’ Forums (RMFs) are essentially groupings of the managers of State agencies at the district and/or sub-regional level depending on the structure of the agency, although some RMF’s also invite the participation of local government and the Commonwealth. In South East Queensland there are around 6 or 7 RMF’s, for example there are two RMF’s covering the NORSROC sub-region. There are significant discrepancies between the boundaries of RMFs and
the sub-regions in South East Queensland The objectives of RMF’s (based on the website for the Northern Regional Managers Forum) are to: Act as a focal point for State Government contact within the particular “region” Provide whole-of-Government input into regional and sub-regional planning activities Encourage information exchange between line departments and central agencies with the aim of improving service delivery Facilitate the sharing of resources between agencies Promote collaborative service delivery and identify gaps and overlays in service provision Promote professional development opportunities and the formation of networks in
regional locations.
Their coordination function is hampered by the fact that any coordination initiatives need to be dismantled for consideration at higher levels within individual agencies before any significant action can be taken. This process is not conducive to coordinated action. The Community Engagement Division of the Department of Premier and Cabinet is the facilitating agency for RMFs. However the RMFs themselves tend to operate on goodwill and the commitment of individual agencies to foster improved cooperation in service delivery. It is understood that the role and function of RMFs is currently under review by the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
Sector Specific Initiatives There is also number of strategies and plans that establish a coordinated framework for addressing particular issues. These are normally prepared on a regional or catchment basis, and are often Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 19 developed as the result of a particular need or priority action identified in the RFGM. Some examples of these specific initiatives include:
South East Queensland Regional Air Quality Strategy
SEQ Integrated Regional Transport Plan
SEQ Regional Nature Conservation Strategy
SEQ Regional Coastal Management Plan.
The Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership provides another example of a specific initiative aimed at achieving improved outcomes through a coordinated approach to a specific issue of importance to the region. Each of these initiatives has its own institutional arrangements to coordinate and oversight the implementation of its plan or strategy. Generally these arrangements involve representation from the State and local government spheres and key non-government stakeholders, and include a mechanism for reporting back to the Regional Coordination Committee. All of these initiatives provide improved coordination and project prioritisation mechanisms for their particular spheres of interest, but none of them provide an overarching regional infrastructure coordination framework.
6.4 THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND FUNDING FRAMEWORK UNDER IPA
The Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) introduced a new approach to the coordination and funding of infrastructure for urban development. Infrastructure Charges replace the previous headworks charging regime. They enable Councils to recover costs of the three urban infrastructure networks considered essential to meet basic community needs. These are water cycle management infrastructure (water supply, sewerage and environmental water management), transport infrastructure (local roads, footpaths, cycle ways, carparks etc) and community land networks (public parks infrastructure, land for community facilities). Infrastructure charges are limited to these networks because, as an upfront charge usually levied at the time of development, they affect housing affordability and reduce opportunities for new communities to participate in choosing the nature and cost of services they wish to pay for.
Infrastructure charges provide added certainty for developers and local governments because they are levied as routine 'fees for service’, which are calculated in advance with all details shown in an Infrastructure Charges Plan (ICP). An ICP is subject to the same public scrutiny as a planning scheme. Following a recent operational review of the IPA, several changes were made to the infrastructure planning and funding framework. The most fundamental of these was to make more clear the distinction between the mechanisms necessary to plan for infrastructure and the mechanisms provided to fund it. The planning elements were removed from the Infrastructure Charges Plan and the mechanism renamed an Infrastructure Charges Schedule (ICS). The ICS is now solely an infrastructure funding tool, and draws the necessary infrastructure planning data from a new mechanism, the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP). The PIP will be the central infrastructure planning tool for the planning scheme and offers an opportunity for improved coordination of local and state provided community infrastructure.
Each local government’s planning scheme is required to include a PIP. This is an identifiable
component of the overall scheme that does the following:
identifies the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) - the part of the local government area that is serviced by trunk infrastructure and any additional area needed to accommodate at least 10 years, but not more than 15 years of growth in each of the key urban sectors (residential, retail/commercial and industrial); includes the plans for trunk infrastructure for which there is an infrastructure charges schedule; Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 20 identifies, if required by a State infrastructure provider a statement of intent for State-controlled roads; or the Roads Implementation Program under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, section 11; states the assumptions about the type, scale, location and timing of future development on which the plan is based; states the desired standard of service for each development infrastructure network identified in the plan; includes any local government infrastructure charges schedules for recouping the cost of the trunk infrastructure identified in the plan. It will still be possible for local governments to set conditions for non-trunk infrastructure (direct connections to networks etc) as part of the development approval process.
The inclusion of a discrete infrastructure planning component into each planning scheme is intended to address the problem that land use planning has often been carried out without an adequate supporting infrastructure planning framework. The consequences of this have been inefficient and costly infrastructure networks and delays in providing services. However, the PIP is not a works program. Local governments establish their works programs through the budget process, not their planning schemes. The revised infrastructure framework does not seek to change this. The purpose of the PIP is to better integrate land use and infrastructure planning and establish a planning benchmark for the operation of the infrastructure charging and conditioning system. Development consistent with the PIP is encouraged, while inconsistent development may be required to pay any additional infrastructure costs. Because enabling legislation for Infrastructure Charges Schedules and Priority Infrastructure Plans is yet to commence, no Queensland local governments have yet adopted them. A number of local
governments are however well advanced in their preparation.
6.5 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Public Private Partnerships (PPP) The Public Private Partnerships Guidance Material (August 2002) sets out the broad framework for undertaking the feasibility studies and the public tender process and procurement arrangements. The PPP Guidance Material states that the State Government’s policy is to encourage “private sector involvement in the provision of a public infrastructure need or service…where it can be shown that the State will achieve better value for money…compared with the option of delivering the project and/or service entirely at the public sector’s cost and/or risk.” The PPP Guidance Material sets out the following criteria for identifying where value for money may be achieved on infrastructure projects:
the project size justifies the transaction and managements costs; there is a defined measurable service delivery function or output mechanism; there is scope within the project delivery for the optimisation and the allocation of manageable risk to the private sector, delivering a cost effective outcome; there is scope for sector private sector innovation, value adding and/or cost reductions in the delivery and operation of the service; that there is real value in transferring responsibility for the operational and maintenance phase of the project to the private sector; and
there is an identifiable market of private sector bidders prepared to compete for the opportunity to deliver the project. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 21 This policy applies to public infrastructure projects where the expected capital value will exceed $30M or the Net Present Value (NPV) of the strategic priority will exceed $50M during the term of the contractual relationship. The implementation of PPP project initiatives is subject to Cabinet approval processes. The Cabinet Budget Review Committee will be responsible for the review of each proposal in relation to the project’s conformity to Government policy, and the project’s need and affordability. Projects suitable for PPPs may be identified through the SIP process, but also through agency assessment processes, consistent with their strategic plan. The relevant Portfolio Minister will be responsible for each project initiative under the policy. The Minister for State Development is responsible for developing and overseeing the policy framework. If an Agency receives an unsolicited proposal from a private party addressing a service requirement identified by that party, the proposal will be assessed for priority against the relevant agency’s Strategic Plan, service delivery programs and the SIP. Government Owned Corporations Largely in response to the National Competition Policy, a significant and increasing proportion of
the infrastructure that was previously provided directly by the State Government is now the responsibility of corporatised infrastructure providers such as the port, rail, water and energy corporations. These bodies operate under the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 (GOCA). The GOCA requires that GOC Boards act commercially. It is not the role of GOCs to implement or follow the Government’s broader economic, social and regional planning objectives.
However the GOCA enables the Government to issue directions to GOCs or enter into contractual arrangements with GOCs in relation to infrastructure investments that may deliver broader economic, social or regional policy objectives. The GOCA requires that these arrangements are explicit and, where appropriate funded by Government. This approach ensures the Government maintains control of the policy agenda, while the GOC Boards have clear objectives and accountability. Local governments have also put some of their key service functions, notably water supply, on a commercial footing over recent years, and have contracted out other services such as waste management to the private sector. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 22

7.0 KEY ISSUES AND POLICY OPTIONS
Issue 1: Improved Infrastructure Planning and Coordination at the Regional and Subregional Levels The previous sections of this paper briefly described the existing State and regional level coordination arrangements. The State Government has made significant efforts to improve coordination between State agencies. The current arrangements include:
The State budget process;
The State Infrastructure Plan providing a State and regional framework for economic infrastructure planning and delivery;
The Regional Coordination Committee and SEQ RFGM2000 providing a regional framework, including a preferred settlement pattern, for infrastructure planning;
SEQROC and the Sub-ROCs groupings of local governments;
The Capital Infrastructure Strategic Planning process that requires State agencies to
acknowledge the broader planning frameworks (e.g. regional plans); and
A range of sector or issue-specific strategies, plans and implementation arrangements (such as the SEQ Integrated Regional Transport Plan and the SEQ Regional Air Quality Strategy).
Notwithstanding these arrangements, it is the ICFWG’s view that the efficiency of infrastructure
delivery in SEQ could be substantially improved through an increased emphasis on regional and sub-regional level coordination and evaluation of infrastructure proposals. This would enable the
broad range of such infrastructure proposals to be prioritised between agencies and levels of government.
The process for achieving this coordination would need to ensure that any such regional level advice is effectively integrated into individual agency forward plans and the State and Local Government budget processes. Infrastructure providers use a range of project evaluation techniques (such as those set out in the Project Evaluation Guidelines issued by Queensland Treasury) to evaluate and prioritise projects based primarily on measures such as Net Present Value (NPV) or Cost-Benefit Ratio (CBR). While these and other evaluation techniques are useful for prioritising like projects (eg for prioritising say road projects), they may not provide the breadth of evaluation against other social, environmental and economic development objectives to enable different types of infrastructure projects to be prioritised eg between portfolios and provider agencies. A broader evaluation methodology would be required to enable major infrastructure projects to be evaluated and prioritised at the regional level. As outlined above the RCC has been given the responsibility for endorsing “regional infrastructure priority plans” prepared by the Regional Resource Unit (RRU) in conjunction with the Departments of Premier and Cabinet and State Development. However the RRU has not been appropriately resourced to carry out this task, and there has been no clear mechanism by which the regional infrastructure priority plans would be integrated into the State Government’s infrastructure planning and budgeting processes. As a result, other than the State budget process and the process outlined above for coordinating economic infrastructure through the SIP, there does not appear to be any overarching process for achieving infrastructure coordination and prioritisation (including social and environmental infrastructure) between agencies and spheres of government at the regional level. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 23 Policy Options The RCC’s responsibility for regional infrastructure coordination should be reinforced and appropriately resourced to allow the RCC to coordinate, evaluate and prioritise regional and sub-regional scale infrastructure projects in South East Queensland. The results of this process should be documented in a Regional Infrastructure Plan which would include an infrastructure sequencing plan with appropriate “triggers” for individual projects, and a preliminary identification of projects that may be suitable for private sector delivery. OR The RCC’s role should be revised and it should be appropriately resourced to provide advice on regional and sub-regional infrastructure needs and priorities to the State Infrastructure Plan process for economic infrastructure, and prepare a Regional Infrastructure Plan for social and environmental infrastructure not addressed by the State Infrastructure Plan. AND (in conjunction with either of the options outlined above) The RCC should develop and adopt a multi-criteria evaluation methodology suitable for prioritising projects at the regional level. The Regional Infrastructure Plan should inform other processes of government including the State Infrastructure Plan and the budget processes of both State and local government. The RCC should oversee the implementation of the Regional Infrastructure Plan, and liaise with State agencies and local governments regarding its implementation. Issue 2: Coordination of Infrastructure at the Sub-regional and Local Levels As described above the IPA includes a mechanism (Priority Infrastructure Plans) that is intended to achieve a high level of infrastructure coordination and a suitable infrastructure funding regime at the local level through local government planning schemes. However this mechanism applies only to local government infrastructure networks. It is equally important to ensure that the infrastructure provided by State agencies is provided in a coordinated fashion consistent with the overall planning intentions for the local area as set out in the local government planning scheme. The ICFWG is aware of a number of instances where this has not occurred (eg inappropriate siting of schools or health care facilities with consequent detrimental accessibility and transport demand impacts). By way of example of the way in which some agencies have identified the problem and introduced measures to address it, Education Queensland (EQ) has reviewed its processes to improve coordination both within the department and with other agencies and local government. Education Queensland recently produced guidelines for Local Area Facilities Planning (LAFP), Master Planning and Enrolment Management Planning to integrate the planning processes with inputs to the EQ Capital Works Program and the EQ Capital Investment Strategic Plan. The core task of LAFP is to find the balance between what assets the State has to support educational service delivery and what will be required to meet the needs of developing and changing communities. As part of the LAFP process, the department carries out an ongoing, cyclical review of schools, clusters of schools and districts to review the service delivery pressures that occur due to changes in the educational and community environments. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 24 Annually, EQ prepares a profile which evaluates the facilities in each District to address forecast imbalances in the delivery of educational services. During this process EQ officers make contact with local governments and other agencies, particularly in growth areas. The department draws heavily on broadhectare data from DLGP, and local government planning schemes and Priority Infrastructure Plans (PIPs), the rate and timing of new schools and other associated demand/supply match tasks, including perceived future school needs and site location. While the LAFP process is a step forward, it is still an internal process undertaken by a single agency. Notwithstanding the extensive consultation involved, the decisions taken through this process are likely to reflect the views and objectives of Education Queensland rather than a broader community perspective. For example, a school site within any given area of demonstrated demand may still be selected primarily on the basis of facility catchment demographics and land availability rather than its contribution to the achievement of desired local planning outcomes. There are a number of areas throughout the region where major growth areas straddle two or more local government boundaries. In these areas the infrastructure coordination issues are even more acute, involving not only State and local government coordination but also resolution of competing policy issues between local governments, and possibly differing infrastructure planning and charging regimes. For example, SouthROC considers the northern Gold Coast City-eastern Logan Shire-western and southern Redland Shire area to fall into this category, and there are similar issues at the southern end of Gold Coast City-northern Tweed Shire. For areas like these with complex land use and infrastructure planning issues it may be appropriate to consider specific mechanisms such as cooperative institutional arrangements and planning processes to ensure that land use and infrastructure planning is effectively coordinated and appropriate implementation arrangements are established. A similar argument could perhaps be mounted for specific coordination arrangements between the State Government and Brisbane City (which is regarded as a separate sub-region under the current regional coordination arrangements) in view of its pivotal location in the region and its role as a major provider of infrastructure. Improved coordination between State infrastructure providers and local governments could address this issue and result in better outcomes for the community from the provision of State and local government infrastructure. Policy Options Align RMF boundaries to coincide with the SEQ sub-regions, and better integrate these groups to improve local area infrastructure planning and coordination. Use local government Priority Infrastructure Plans as the principal mechanism for coordinating State and local government infrastructure. More rigorous and transparent use of the community infrastructure designation process to ensure the achievement of desired local outcomes. Use the regional planning process to identify key areas undergoing significant growth or change, and investigate the establishment specific arrangements involving both State and local government to ensure land use and infrastructure planning is properly coordinated. Issue 3: Need to use Consistent Growth Assumptions The demographic projections prepared by the DLGP’s Planning Information and Forecasting Unit (PIFU) are widely used by State agencies and local governments for infrastructure planning purposes. However some State agencies and local governments prepare and use their own forecasts, or use the PIFU forecasts but interpret them differently. The ICFWG is aware of a Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 25 number of examples where both State agencies and local governments have used widely disparate growth assumptions for their infrastructure planning purposes. To provide a whole-of-government endorsement of the State and Statistical Division level projections, a Population Projections Panel (PIFU, Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Department of Treasury, Department of Premier and Cabinet, and other interested Government Departments) has recently been established. This panel will contribute expert input into assumptions used in the modelling. The statistical division projections will then be used by PIFU as ‘controls’ for LGA projections in each division. This initiative should assist to ensure that the PIFU LGA forecasts are used more consistently by all State agencies. PIFU also monitors and regularly updates data on residential land supply and take-up rates by local government area for South East Queensland and other parts of the State. This information is highly regarded and used extensively for planning purposes by local governments, State agencies and the private sector.
DSD conducted a study into the stock of regionally significant industrial land in South East Queensland in 2000. Although some additional work has been done the data on industrial landsupply in the region has not been formally updated since. Therefore the data collected in 2000 provides only a snapshot of industrial land supply in South East Queensland at a particular point in time, although a number of local governments in the region collect their own data on industrial land availability and take-up rates. The use of consistent growth assumptions is essential for coordinated and efficient infrastructure planning and delivery. The growth projections and data analysis currently undertaken by PIFU relate primarily to population growth and residential land supply and take up. The statistical division projections are based on demographic trends rather than a reflection of planning intentions. The projections for LGAs and smaller areas prepared by PIFU reflect current expectations about future residential land supply consistent with local government planning schemes. The ICFWG considers that employment projections and data on industrial land supply and take-up rates are also critical to efficient infrastructure planning and delivery, and that these should form part of any consistent set of growth assumptions for the region. Policy Options Prepare and adopt consistent regional growth assumptions (i.e. population and employment targets) and associated population and employment projections for planning (including infrastructure planning) purposes in the region.
Monitor industrial and commercial land supply and take-up in a similar manner to that currently done for residential land. Issue 4: Preservation of Key Infrastructure Corridors and Sites The rapid urban growth in South East Queensland combined with the increasing significance placed on conservation, vegetation management and scenic amenity values (e.g. through the Regional Nature Conservation Strategy and the SEQ Regional Coastal Management Plan) is
making it more difficult and costly to identify and preserve suitable corridors and major sites for
network infrastructure such as transport, telecommunications and power supply. These concerns will become more pressing with the continued population growth and development in South East Queensland, and highlight the importance of early identification and cost-effective preservation of land required for major infrastructure purposes.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 26
However, the early identification of corridors required for longer-term use is hampered by the risk of substantial up-front acquisition costs. With limited funds for infrastructure delivery, it becomes difficult to give a high priority to the acquisition of land for long-term infrastructure corridors and sites in the face of more immediate needs. Also the preservation of land for infrastructure purposes needs to be preceded by detailed site and environmental assessments to ensure that the land requirements are clearly identified and are not likely to change as more detailed studies are undertaken. These issues are also a concern for the private sector. The success of development projects may hinge on the ability of public sector agencies to deliver major infrastructure (e.g. arterial road or rail access) in a timely fashion. All rapidly developing regions face similar issues. A US study (Transportation Corridor Preservation, Urban Land, November 1993) identified a range of techniques including preservation partnerships with developers. When developers along identified transportation corridors apply for development approval, government agencies seek to negotiate deals that would keep corridor land out of development until it can be acquired. These deals have included density transfers that shifted development yields from the corridor land to other sites, and the encouragement of interim uses such as parking, storage, golf driving ranges, agriculture and nurseries. In California, the state transportation agency has a formal preservation policy for priority routes, and has developed multidisciplinary planning teams to work with local government and developers to market and implement its preservation strategy. A key element of the strategy is effective communication of the central message: “a transportation facility may be part of a long-range government plan, but unless the private sector cooperates…in preserving (the) corridors, the facility may not be built”. Studies that identified the amount of economic development that would be lost also formed part of the overall strategy.
The study found that large developers generally appreciate the longer-term benefits of corridorpreservation to their projects, and cooperate to preserve corridors until they can be acquired. Smaller developers generally have shorter timeframes (and the corridor may form a significantly larger proportion of their development site) and may require inducements through the approval process (e.g. yield transfers). In Queensland these approaches may be complicated because the approval authority will normally be a local government, and the infrastructure provider (for regional scale infrastructure) will normally be a State agency. The community infrastructure designation mechanism under IPA provides significant benefits by making the community infrastructure development “exempt” development (i.e. does not require a development application) and exempting it from any relevant infrastructure charges, however the designation ceases to have effect after 6 years, unless reconfirmed by the designator. The reconfirmation process involves giving notices to the local governments affected and the owners of the land. A designation for community infrastructure also opens the designator to requests to
acquire the designated land on hardship grounds. The hardship acquisition provisions under IPA appear to be more onerous than those for compensation because there is a 2-year time limit for compensation claims arising from a change to a planning scheme, and the landowner must make a development application that is assessed against the new planning scheme. Also the quantum of compensation for a reduced value in the interest in land is likely to be less than the cost of hardship acquisition thus reducing up-front costs to the infrastructure provider. These considerations suggest that it would be less costly to preserve key infrastructure corridors or sites by requiring them to be retained or placed in low intensity zones in planning schemes. However the problem is that the risks and costs are transferred from the infrastructure provider agency (or designator) to the local government. A solution may be to provide indemnities to local government for any costs associated with compensation claims arising from the treatment of required infrastructure corridors and sites in their planning schemes. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 27 The SEQ2021 process should identify key long-term multi-use infrastructure corridors required to service the projected population growth and economic development opportunities in the region. Mechanisms should be developed to enable the corridors to be preserved and retained in productive economic use until they are required for infrastructure development purposes. Policy Options Identify key infrastructure corridors in broad terms, undertake necessary detailed studies to confirm need for and location of corridors. Review the community infrastructure designation requirements under IPA with a view to limiting the upfront cost impacts of the hardship acquisition provisions.
Investigate the potential to require identified infrastructure corridors and sites to be retained in low intensity zones in planning schemes (perhaps through the whole-of- Government scheme review process), with associated indemnities for any costs associated with compensation claims.
Develop options for the use of land and treatments in planning schemes to preserve corridors and sites for future use. Issue 5: Infrastructure Funding The provision of adequate and appropriate infrastructure is essential to meet the social, environmental and economic development objectives of the community. Investment in economic infrastructure is required to ensure the State achieves its economic development potential. Population growth and changing demographics (eg an ageing population) also mean that there is significant demand for ongoing investment in social infrastructure to meet the changing needs of the community.
These demands are particularly pressing in South East Queensland which is accommodating an increasing proportion of the State’s population. Brisbane City and the Gold and Sunshine Coasts between them accommodated more than half of Queensland’s population growth over the decade to 2001. At the same time, it is becoming more difficult to fund infrastructure development because of the restrictions placed on public spending and borrowing at all levels of government. As outlined above, the Government’s Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility specifies a number of key fiscal policy principles including the following:
Borrowings or other financial arrangements will only be undertaken for capital
investments and only where these can be serviced within the operating surplus,
consistent with maintaining a AAA credit rating.
The Government will ensure that State taxes and charges remain competitive with the other States and Territories. The policy on borrowings appears to have the effect that it is easier to obtain funding for economic infrastructure projects that have a stream of income flows (e.g. from the sale of water) or other forms of tangible benefits (e.g. travel time savings, reductions in traffic accidents, promotion of economic development with associated employment growth etc) that can be clearly offset against borrowing costs, than for social or environmental projects where the benefits are generally intangible and less easily offset against the financial cost of the project. This has lead to the perception that the State is willing to go into debt for economic infrastructure, but social infrastructure needs to be funded from recurrent funds. Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 28 Of course some types of economic infrastructure that are able to generate income flows (e.g. toll roads) are also potentially suitable for funding by the private sector. This source of funding is much less likely for social and environmental infrastructure. Funding of road and transport infrastructure provides one useful example of broader infrastructure funding issues in the region. The IRTP highlighted the funding issue for transport infrastructure when it estimated that the shortfall between likely available funding for transport and the need for investment to improve and expand the transport system would be between $10-12 billion over 25 years. The Local Government Association of Queensland, which is the peak advocacy group for local governments in the State, conducted a public Inquiry on Mechanisms to Fund Queensland’s Roads and Transport Infrastructure. Among the key findings of the Inquiry (released in 2002) were:
around $1billion per annum in additional road and public transport funding is required in
Queensland. Current outlays are around $1.8 billion per annum;
unless new funding sources are provided, the cost of not providing the adequate road and
transport system will be substantial. As an example, the cost to motorists and businesses
from not implementing the SEQ IRTP would be in the order of $12 billion per year within
20 years as a result of increased congestion and delay;
the Inquiry’s proposal was for the State Government to remove the Queensland Fuel
Subsidy Scheme to make available an additional amount of around $500 million per
annum for roads and transport funding and a reduction in registration fees.
Whilst it is understood that there will never be sufficient funds to meet all demands for
infrastructure development, these examples make it clear that the sources of funding of
infrastructure in South East Queensland must be broadened beyond traditional government
funding sources.
The options for broadening the funding for infrastructure development include:
development charges (current State Government policy is there be no new State
Government fees or charges);
user charges eg tolls; (current State Government policy is there be no new State
Government fees or charges, any proposal to establish a toll must conform with the State
Government’s policy on applying tolls);
private sector funding; and
other options for funding sources.
In relation to the last of these the ICFWG noted that the current policy of the Government is
outlined in the Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility. Given this any changes of this nature
would be a decision to be taken by the Government.
Development and user charges provide pricing tools that can be used as part of broader demand
management strategies that reduce the demand for particular goods or services, and therefore
defer the need to provide new infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure. Demand
management strategies have been used successfully in the region in relation to water consumption
for example, with significant cost savings in water harvesting and treatment infrastructure.
Demand management needs to form part of a broader sectoral strategy (e.g. the IRTP addresses
demand management in relation to transport services and infrastructure).
As noted above the Government has already made significant progress in relation to some of these
through the infrastructure charging regime in the IPA, embracing the concept of public private
partnerships (PPP) including the release of the PPP Policy and Guidance Material, and the
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 29
privatisation or corporatisation of key infrastructure sectors including energy generation and
supply, ports and railways. Local governments have also placed some of their key service delivery
functions on a commercial footing.
Another possibility lies in the creation of new institutional arrangements that may provide
opportunities for innovative funding arrangements, and use existing funds more efficiently through
improved coordination of activities and economies of scale. The recent creation of TransLink is an
example of this type of approach.
TransLink represents a fundamental shift in the way SEQ will collectively deliver transport services.
The two key public transport funding bodies in the region (BCC and QT) formed a joint committee
(informed by an advisory board and a series of technical committees) to be the peak body dealing
with public transport planning policies and investment decisions, making best use of resources to
meet the challenges of the region's growth.
Developed in conjunction with Queensland Transport, BCC, Brisbane Transport, Queensland Rail,
other local governments and the private transport operators, TransLink's Public Transport Network
Plan will provide linkages between the IRTP and Transport 2007, and the Government's budget
and public transport contracts. TransLink will collect all the revenue on behalf of the operators,
including QR, Brisbane Transport and the private operators. The revenue will then be redistributed
along with other funding provided by Government to the operators on the basis of services that
TransLink will contract them in accordance with performance standards.
Policy Options
All infrastructure providers should be required to develop regional demand management
strategies.
Expand the use of user pays funding mechanisms.
The regional infrastructure plan should identify those infrastructure projects that are
potentially suitable for private sector funding.
Investigate the establishment of new institutional arrangements that will improve
efficiency and ensure existing funding is used to deliver optimum services.
Review the constraints on borrowing to finance social and environmental infrastructure
taking into consideration the key fiscal policy principles in the Charter of Social and Fiscal
Responsibility.
Encourage the coordination of service levels and pricing mechanisms between local
governments and across State agencies.
Issue 6: Private Sector Involvement
The private sector is able to introduce some efficiencies into the infrastructure planning and
delivery process. However the public sector also has a number of strengths that should enable it
to be an effective provider of infrastructure. For example the public sector is able to engage the
same range of private sector skills to design and construct projects, does not require a profit
margin, is able to borrow more cheaply, is effectively able to spread risk across a wide range of
projects (thus reducing the risk margin or premium that would be built into private sector proposals)
and can engage the private sector to operate the infrastructure if this would be more cost-effective.
Among the key benefits of private sector involvement are: the introduction of alternative sources of
funding thus reducing public sector budget pressures; the ability to charge for services provided
which can often be politically difficult for governments; and the introduction of innovative service
delivery solutions, including alternative technologies, with improved overall outcomes.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 30
The State Government is keen to encourage private sector involvement in infrastructure provision,
and has adopted the Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) model to achieve this. However, the
private sector has a number of concerns about the implementation of the PPP that may have
constrained the level of private sector investment to date. The concerns raised by the private
sector include:
the excessively time-consuming processes required to gain government approvals;
that the Government needs to be committed to an infrastructure project before it invites
potential investors to develop detailed proposals and tenders (the Brisbane light rail
project which was abandoned without compensation to tenderers provides an example of
where this did not happen with considerable cost to private sector investors);
the need for the Government to set out more clearly its priority infrastructure requirements
(the SIP is a good example), and to clarify its policy stance on private sector involvement
in particular types of infrastructure (for example, does the Government support the use of
toll roads for projects such as the second Toowoomba range crossing);
the need to broaden the range of infrastructure projects in which private sector
involvement is sought. There is some concern that private sector involvement is only
sought for less attractive or difficult projects that are not financially viable;
that the “alternative technology” expertise available in the private sector should be used
more effectively by encouraging involvement earlier in the project delivery process. At
present infrastructure solutions have largely been identified, and the private sector is then
invited to build and operate an item of infrastructure rather than to assist in devising the
solution (for example the private sector might be invited to build and operate a land fill
facility rather than to provide a waste management solution).
The new PPP Policy and Value for Money Framework (VFM) (released in August 2002) have been
designed to address these concerns, and to support the Government's interest in examining
private sector involvement in all types of infrastructure. The policy framework is applied to all
projects with a whole-of-life present value greater that $50M. Some of the private sector’s
concerns are addressed by requiring government agencies to more fully consider infrastructure
projects before involving the private sector, and to undertake a detailed examination of the
potential for private sector involvement. However these new arrangements need to be tested in
practice to determine the extent to which they address the concerns outlined above.
In terms of setting out the priority of infrastructure requirements, the reality is that while planning
processes can identify strategic needs the final definition of priority can only be concluded upon
detailed investigation of affordability and value for money. Government commitments which are
contained in the annual budget statements, and analysis of the State Infrastructure Plan by the
private sector should assist the development of a reasonable understanding of the likely
infrastructure priorities the Government could be expected to pursue over a 5-10 year timeframe.
Market sounding processes have been contained in both the Preliminary Assessment PPP

Business Case stages of the VFM Framework. The basis of the VFM Framework is the

development of a non-prescriptive output specification which focuses on the service outcomes that
the Government would like to see delivered at the end of the day. This enables the maximum
innovation to be applied by the private sector in presenting solutions through competitive bidding
processes.
Policy Options
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 31
Hold an annual “infrastructure summit” involving key infrastructure provider agencies,
local government and the private sector to canvass opportunities for private sector
involvement in upcoming projects.
Identify projects suitable for private sector delivery in the regional Infrastructure plan and
the State infrastructure plan.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 32
APPENDIX A: INFRASTRUCTURE COORDINATION AND FUNDING
WORKING GROUP MEMBERSHIP
John Abbott SEQ2021
Ashley Andersson Queensland Treasury
Kath Begley Queensland Treasury
Nigel Brown Department of State Development
Roger du Blet Commerce Queensland
Jason Furner Education Queensland
Tim Griffin Queensland Transport
Ian Hodgetts Infrastructure Association of Queensland
Keith Ingerman Southern Sub-Regional Organisation of Councils
Peter Keane Western Sub-Regional Organisation of Councils
Brian Lister Brisbane City Council
Les Louis Institution of Engineers
Stewart Lummis Property Council of Australia
Craig McAlpin Department of Local Government & Planning
John McEvoy Infrastructure Association of Queensland
Mark Nolan Commonwealth Department of Transport & Regional Services
Peter Sippel Urban Development Institute of Australia
Norman Stevens Main Roads
Bruce Stewart Department of Premier & Cabinet
Peter Syson Chair Planning Institute of Australia (Chair)
Karen Thompson Department of State Development
Bob Tooth Queensland Health
Joe Veraa South East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils
Wally Wight Northern Sub-Regional Organisation of Councils
SEQ2021 Convenor/Liaison
Officer
Scott Hutchison Department of Local Government and Planning
Consultancy
Gary Lee Lee Consulting
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 33
APPENDIX B LIST OF REFERENCES
South East Queensland Regional Framework for Growth Management 2000, Regional
Coordination Committee, December 2000.
Whole of Government Outcomes, Outcome Indicators and Key Outcome Measures,
Queensland Government, November 2002.
Northern Regional Managers Forum, premiers.govnet.qld.gov.au (February 2003).
Charter of Fiscal and Social Responsibility, Queensland Government, October 2001.
Project Evaluation Guidelines, Queensland Treasury, February 1997.
Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2001-02 Annual Report, premiers.qld.gov.au
2002-03 Budget Snapshot, www.budget.qld.gov.au (February 2003)
Greater Brisbane Regional Budget Statement, www.budget.qld.gov.au (February 2003)
www.seqroc.qld.gov.au
State Infrastructure Plan: Strategic Directions 2001, Department of State Development.
State Infrastructure Plan: Implementation Plan 2002/2003, Department of State
Development.
Capital Investment Strategic Plan Guidelines, Queensland Treasury, November 2000.
Transport and infrastructure Policy: Auslink Green Paper, Department of Transport and
Regional Services, www.dotars.gov.au/trtansinfra/auslink/greenpaper.htm (February
2003).
Public Inquiry on Mechanisms to Fund Queensland’s Road and Transport Infrastructure,
Local Government Association of Queensland, www.lgaq.asn.au (February 2003)
SEQ RFGM Review 2000: Regional Infrastructure Coordination – Towards an Improved
Process, Planning Australia, June 2000.
New Directions for Infrastructure Coordination in Queensland, Urban Development
Coordination Unit, Queensland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning,
August 1994.
Infrastructure Planning, www.ipa.qld.gov.au (January 2003)
Public Private Partnerships: Guidance Material, Department of State Development,
August 2002
Transportation Corridor Preservation, Malcolm D. Rivkin and Goldie W. Rivkin, Urban
Land, November 1993.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 34
APPENDIX C: INDICATIVE REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA
BROAD
CATEGORY
REGIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM
New Upgrade
Urban Water
Supply
Dam Intended to have a yield of > 30,000 ML/a Intended to increase its yield to > 30,000 ML/a
Water treatment plant Intended to service a major urban area of > 50,000
persons
Intended to service a major urban area of >
50,000 persons
Bulk water trunk mains Pipes > 750 mm diameter, or a lesser dimension
which is intended to service a major urban area of
> 50,000 persons
Upgrading an existing trunk main to > 750 mm
diameter pipe or a less dimension which is
intended to service a major urban area of >
50,000 persons.
Rural Water
Supply (primary
production)
Dam and associated
infrastructure
Intended to supply water with a yield of > 10,000
ML/a for rural production purposes.
Intended to supply water for rural production
purposes by increasing its yield to > 10,000 ML/a
Sewerage Sewerage treatment plant Intended to service an equivalent population of >
50,000 persons
Intended to service an equivalent population of >
50,000 persons
Sewerage trunk mains Pipes > 750 mm diameter; or a lesser dimension
which is intended to service an equivalent
population of > 50,000 persons
Pipes > 750 mm diameter or a lesser dimension
which is intended to service an equivalent
population of > 50,000 persons
Wastewater reuse infrastructure Wastewater treatment plants and major trunk line
capable of treating and distributing > 25% of
current wastewater production.
Upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants
and major wastewater distribution trunk line to a
standard of > 25% of current wastewater
production.
Energy Power station Any new power station Upgrade an existing power station to increase its
power output by more than 10% above existing
levels
Electricity transmission line Transmission line > 275 kV Upgrade of an existing transmission line to > 275
kV
Electricity sub-station /
Transformers
Major bulk supply sub-station > 150 MW. Upgrade an existing major bulk supply sub-station
to a capacity of > 150 MW.
High pressure gas trunk mains Any new gas trunk main > 30 cm diameter.
Gas distribution system facility Any new gas distribution facility designed to relay
compression gas along a trunk mains;
or
Upgrading any gas distribution facility to increase
the compression of an existing gas trunk main;
or
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 35
BROAD
CATEGORY
REGIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM
New Upgrade
Any new gas distribution facility designed to
decompress gas for distribution to a local network.
Upgrading the capacity of any gas distribution
facility by more that 10% to increase its ability to
supply a given area.
Environment State Conservation /
Management Reserves
Declaration / acquisitions of new land / water areas
intended to become part of State Reserve System
Addition of land / water > 10 ha intended to
extend the existing State Reserve System
Domestic and commercial
landfill
New domestic / commercial landfill facility intended
to be serviced by two or more local governments.
Acquisition of additional land > 5 ha for extension
to existing domestic / commercial landfill facility
servicing more than one local government area,
or increasing its capacity by > 10%.
Regulated waste landfill New regulated waste landfill facility Acquisition of additional land > 5 ha for extension
to existing regulated waste facility, or increase its
capacity by > 10%.
Transport National highway New national highway Upgrading any existing national highway to > 4
lanes, or a lesser standard where upgrading will
increase the capability of that road to assume a
regional function, or to assume a greater than
existing regional function (road works and grade
separated intersections only. Do not include
bridges or passing lanes)
State controlled road New state controlled road Upgrading any existing State controlled road to or
greater than 4 lanes, or a lesser standard where
upgrading will increase the capability of that road
to assume a regional function, or to assume a
greater than existing regional function (road
works and grade separated intersections only.
Do not include bridges or passing lanes)
Local arterial road New local arterial road intended to ultimately
provide 4 lanes of traffic (road works only)
Upgrading an existing local arterial road in order
to remove local traffic from national or state
controlled roads (road works and grade separated
intersections only. Do not include bridges or
passing lanes).
Busway Busway system operating on its own dedicated
road space.
Upgrade an existing busway system to operate
on its own dedicated road space
Railways (passenger) New passenger railway line intended to provide
inter and intra urban travel
Upgrading the number of existing railways tracks
to be used for passenger rail services
Railways (freight) New freight railway line intended to service inter Upgrading the number of existing freight railways
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 36
BROAD CATEGORY REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM New Upgrade and intra state freight transport tracks Major public transport interchange Dedicated major inter-modal public transport interchange facilities. Upgrade an existing local inter-modal public transport interchange facilities to perform a subregional or regional function. Major freight transport interchange Dedicated major inter-modal freight transport interchange facilities. Upgrade an existing local inter-modal freight transport interchange facilities to perform a subregional or regional function. Airport New airport with a standard of Group A Regionally significant airport or above. Refer to Planning Guidelines: Planning for Aerodromes and Other Aeronautical Facilities. Upgrade an existing airport of local significance to a standard of Group A Regionally significant airport or above. Refer to Planning Guidelines: Planning for Aerodromes and Other Aeronautical Facilities. Sea port New sea port intended to facilitate international trade Upgrade an existing (trade) seaport facility by either increasing its container or shipping berth capacity sufficiently to facilitate international trade. Health Level 5 and 6 Hospitals New level 5 or 6 hospital. Upgrade an existing hospital to a level 5 or 6 facility. Education TAFE New TAFE facility Expansion to existing TAFE facility designed to increase its student and research capacity by 10% or greater. University campus New university or university campus Expansion to existing university / campus facility designed to increase its student and research
capacity by 10% or greater.
Civic Government office space Construction of new government (commonwealth,
state and local) office space > 2,000 m2 GFA.
Upgrade an existing government office space by
adding more than 500 m2 GFA.
Court houses New courthouse complex. Major additions to existing court house facilities
intended to increase its capacity by > 10%.
Watch houses New watch house facilities. Major additions to existing watch house facilities
intended to increase its capacity by > 10%.
Recreation facility Major sporting facility intended to function as a
headquarter location for one particular sport, or as
part of a major multi purpose sporting facility.
Upgrading of an existing sporting facility which is
intended to make it the headquarter location for
one particular sport, or a major multi purpose
sporting facility.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 37
BROAD
CATEGORY
REGIONAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ITEM
New Upgrade
Cultural facility Major cultural facility intended to meet a wide, but
generic cultural target audience. (i.e. it is not
intended to meet a small and / or specific cultural
target audience).
Major upgrade of an existing major cultural facility
to expand its seating capacity and / or the range
of cultural events it can host.
Digital
Communication Broad band trunking network New broad band trunking network caballing. Upgrade existing caballing to broad band trunking network standard. Digital exchange New digital exchange facility with a capacity to transfer digital data at > 2 mb /s Upgrade an existing digital exchange facility to a capacity of transferring digital data at a rate > 2 mb /s Defence Airport New dedicated defence airport facility Upgrading an existing defence airport facility by increasing its capacity for handling larger sized planes. Training establishment New defence training establishment. Expansion to an existing defence training establishment by increasing its capacity (land or training) by > 10%.
Discussion Paper – Infrastructure Coordination & Funding 38
APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CISPs Capital Investment Strategic Plans
DES Department of Emergency Services
DET Department of Employment and Training
DIIE Department of Innovation and Information Economy
DLGP Department of Local Government and Planning
DSD Department of State Development
EED&I Employment, Economic Development and Infrastructure (CEO Committee)
EQ Education Queensland
ICFWG Infrastructure Coordination & Funding Working Group
ICS Infrastructure Changes Schedule
IPA Integrated Planning Act 1997
IRTP Integrated Regional Transport Plan
GOC Government Owned Corporation
GOCA Government Owned Corporations Act 1993
LAFP Local Area Facilities Planning
MFO Managing for Outcomes
NORSROC Northern Sub-Regional Organisation of Councils
ODCOG Office of the Deputy Coordinator General
PIA Priority Infrastructure Area
PIFU Planning Information and Forecasting Unit of DLGP
PPP Public Private Partnerships
RCC Regional Coordination Committee
RFGM 2000 SEQ Regional Framework for Growth Management released in 2000
RMF Regional Managers’ Forum
RRU Regional Resource Unit (SEQ2021)
SEQ South East Queensland
SEQROC South East Queensland Regional Organisation of Councils
SIP State Infrastructure Plan
SOWG Senior Officers Working Group
VFM Value for Money Framework