Mr ANDREW: Yes, and I have one other question, Chair, to the Acting Auditor-General. Can the
Acting Auditor-General advise whether the Queensland Audit Office has ever conducted or been asked
to conduct a performance audit on the government funding provided to our Aboriginal corporations and
prescribed bodies corporate, including the payment of compensation under its
commercial-in-confidence Indigenous land use agreements?
Ms Johnson: There were two parts to your question. The first one was whether we do any audits
on Aboriginal corporations.
Mr ANDREW: Corporations, yes, and prescribed bodies corporate.
Ms Johnson: Aboriginal organisations are incorporated under federal law, so we do not have
the jurisdiction for that. We have undertaken audits on how well the government is managing any grants
that are provided to some of those organisations.
Mr ANDREW: Thank you.
Ms Johnson: And the second part of your question was—
Mr ANDREW: It was to do with the bodies corporate, including the payment of compensation
under the new commercial-in-confidence Indigenous land use agreements.
Ms Johnson: No, we have not done any audit activity under that.
CHAIR: The first part answers the second part.

Mr ANDREW: Treasurer, page 1 of the SDS mentions ‘delivering fiscal sustainability’. Does the
department use the information from the Audit Office to help Treasury make decisions on spending?
CHAIR: It was a fairly broad question but I will give you some latitude, Treasurer.
Mr DICK: I thank the member for Mirani for his question, and I thank him for at least referring to
a document that compromises the budget papers for this year. When the Queensland Audit Office
completes reports that impact Queensland Treasury, of course we seek to consider and adopt the
recommendations as appropriate. When there are broader reports that may impact on the fiscal position
of the state across other agencies they will be considered by Treasury as well. It really depends on the
nature of the report of the QAO and Treasury and the officers of Treasury. The officers of Treasury will
make an analysis of those reports and consider how that needs to impact on their work and the work
of government more broadly across all departments and agencies.
Mr ANDREW: In the last session I asked about public-private partnerships and how Treasury
makes deliberations on that, because there have been no audits done. Treasurer, can you advise what
steps Treasury has taken over the past four years to review its processes for managing public-private
partnership arrangements and ensure better value for money, public transparency and accountability
around the management of these contracts?
CHAIR: Our committee has obviously had extensive discussions on these issues and the
legislation.
Mr DICK: In relation to audit investigations, they are initiated by the Audit Office. It is a matter for
the Audit Office and the Auditor-General to determine what aspect of government, what part of
government or what policy of government they seek to audit. We do not seek to influence those. In
relation to public-private partnerships, I will get some advice and come back to you today on what, if
anything, Treasury may have done recently about public-private partnerships. I thank the chair for
putting that question in context. I will take some advice this afternoon and come back to the committee.
Mr ANDREW: Treasurer, with regard to departmental delivery and blowouts, does the Treasury
ask the Audit Office to audit that to find out what deliberations need to be done to stop cost blowouts
and situational awareness around that so we can alter the way we deliver projects?
Mr DICK: I am not trying to be difficult, but that is a very broad question. In relation to the issue
of blowouts, it was not specified whether that relates to the capital program, a specific capital program,
public-private partnerships—
CHAIR: It might be an opportunity to talk about general things, for example, whether in the face
of the increasing cost of steel and concrete there is a commitment to continue to do that or other
alternative policies.
Mr DICK: I can give a broad answer to a broad question. I think it is relevant in the sense that
there has been some significant public discussion around the cost of delivering infrastructure not just
in Queensland but across Australia. If you look at one very important measure, that is a measure that
is issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is not an analysis done by Treasury or the Queensland
government; it is the ABS producer price index.
That demonstrates that building construction costs increased nationally by 27.6 per cent over the
past three years to the March quarter 2024. In Queensland, building construction costs rose by 31.2 per
cent over the same period. When we look across the rest of the country, costs increased in New South
Wales by 29.1 per cent, in Victoria by 23.9 per cent over that three-year period, in South Australia by
26.6 per cent, in Western Australia by 31.9 per cent, in the Northern Territory by 21 per cent and in the
ACT by 13.3 per cent. As I said, nationally it is 27.6 per cent.

Even for projects like Brisbane Metro—which is designed, planned, dreamed up and delivered
by an LNP government, a local authority—the initial cost of that project was $944 million. It has now
blown out to twice as much, at $1.7 billion. One person’s blowout is another person’s political attack;
one cost increase is another person’s blowout. I have not heard one thing from one member of the LNP
in the Queensland parliament about Adrian Schrinner’s Brisbane Metro. To give the Lord Mayor of
Brisbane his due, he has taken the decision not to cancel or cut it. He has taken the decision to build
it. We have done the same thing. The only reason we have seen persistent criticism by the LNP of the
state’s Capital Works Program—when we have a large and growing population, when we have a very
diversified state—is that they want to cut it. Just like they are obsessed by debt, they are obsessed by
cutting capital. We know that. They did that.
Ms SIMPSON: Labor cut the Mooloolah River Interchange.
Mr DICK: You were very proud to do that, member for Maroochydore, when you were in the
Newman government.
Ms SIMPSON: Labor cut the Mooloolah River Interchange. That was cut under your watch.
Mr DICK: I am happy to take the interjection from the honourable member, because we know
what the LNP’s legacy was—
Ms SIMPSON: Federal Labor pulled it. State Labor pulled the funding.
Mr DICK: There are too many interjections, Chair. I do not know which ones to take. When the
member for Maroochydore was in government, the LNP never had a budget with a capital program
more than $50 billion. They cut the infrastructure spend in every year they were in government. They
deliberately advertised the fact they were cutting infrastructure to save money.
Mr ANDREW: Point of order, Chair—
Mr DICK: They made a virtue of it. The only piece of infrastructure that the member for
Maroochydore built was 1 William Street—a monument to her and her leader’s glory.
CHAIR: Member, do you have a point of order?
Mr ANDREW: Yes, that was not about my question. I think we have strayed a bit from my
question. I do have a question, Treasurer.
CHAIR: Sorry, your point of order was that you wanted—
Mr ANDREW: Yes, to come back to the question.
CHAIR: Certainly. Treasurer?
Mr DICK: We do have a project assessment framework that provides agencies with the tools to
consider projects, and that is available on the Treasury website, which I would refer the honourable
member to.