Industry to the rescue
1 Comment
By Steven Wardill
May 24, 2007
DAMS and desalination plants could become like toll roads with the private sector allowed to turn a profit by building and operating water infrastructure.
With the State Government facing a $9 billion-plus bill to address southeast Queensland’s water crisis, Water Minister Craig Wallace has insisted private sector involvement is considered.
Mr Wallace recommended a review be undertaken into the benefits of allowing private companies to build infrastructure and sell water to the public.
In his travel report from a recent sojourn to Singapore, Mr Wallace said the review should consider “the merits or otherwise of future public-private partnership projects, especially after the commissioning of current projects under way for the southeast Queensland water grid”.
Mr Wallace yesterday said his recommendation for private sector involvement was for future infrastructure rather than what was currently being built by the Government.
His comment came as Premier Peter Beattie announced the Government would pay engineering firm GHD Consulting $350,000 to investigate a Burdekin-to-Brisbane water pipeline.
The 1200km pipeline would pump water from north Queensland to the parched southeast with early estimates suggesting a $7.5 billion price tag.
The GHD report, which is expected to be completed this year, will examine the cost of piping water over a long distance, possible pipeline routes, the size of the pipes and pumping stations and the power supply needed to push water long distances. It will also consider the unlikely scenario of pumping water from the southeast to the north.
Mr Beattie said the pipeline might be needed in 20 years rather than his previous estimate of up to a century.
“I did talk about 50 years to 100 years when I first raised it (a year ago), clearly it is going to have to be shorter than that,” he said.
Mr Beattie said when the pipeline was built would depend on the final cost and the Government might seek private sector support.
World Wildlife Fund water campaigner Nick Heath dismissed the pipeline as an expensive distraction.
“Why don’t we spend the money on tanks linked to the recycling system,” he said. “It would deliver water sooner, safer and cheaper.”
stevem
Credit Suisse PL 100 World Water 124 201 074
“Water Industry Companies may be able to benefit from the world’s growing demand for fresh water, in particular, the need to increase investment in water infrastructure and other water related services. There is a need to address inadequate and heavily burdened infrastructure that is currently in use. These issues are not only present in the developing world, but also in many developed regions, such as Australia.
New trust tapping into water industry
4/05/2007 By: Alex King
Credit Suisse has launched the PL100 World Water Trust, an innovative new trust offering investors a liquid investment with exposure to companies involved in one of the world’s most vital industries - the provision of fresh water. PL100 World Water hopes to raise a minimum of $25 million to invest in international water industry companies. PL100 World Water is an Australian investment product that has the benefit of capital protection at maturity to $1.00 per unit on issue, and 100% participation on day one in a portfolio of companies involved in the water industry.
With an initial offer price of $1 per unit and a minimum investment amount of $20,000, the trust is offering investors the opportunity to benefit from future continued investment in the water industry.
The fund is being launched by Credit Suisse and Equities Trustees Limited, in conjunction with lead managers Macquarie Equities Limited and Ord Minnett Limited.
Further reading: Some questions that need an answer
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (1)
The people who built this country came very often from those who would never have been other than farm workers or tenant farmers in the old country, but who were able to acquire land, and sometimes vast tracts of it, in the new country, Prior to Federation, many of them gave generously of their land to enable the building of halls, churches and schools for their communities. These were the people who framed our Constitution and there is little wonder that “property” featured heavily in their deliberations and resulting Constitution. The point is that I do not believe that they would ever have envisaged the right of resumption of private property by the State to be used ultimately for corporate gain and would never have countenanced it if they had. I realize that while history and sentiment may collide with the law, sentiment may not prevail but I feel we are currently in dangerous territory.. In addition I wonder if “privatised”, once public utilities, should enjoy the same unfettered and free rights of easement over private property.
While these may appear to be merely State matters, I wonder where they lie with relation to both the Federal Constitution and the Federal Corporations Law. The current situation sees the “State” exercising its rights over private property and subsequently passing on the financial benefits to corporations. – effectively producing resumption not so much for the “common good” but for the benefit of shareholders in those companies. Whether property is acquired by standing in the marketplace or by resumption the prices paid by the State do not reflect the value of the land acquired when potential corporate profits are considered.