{"id":"BILL-QLD-locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025","name":"Locking in Cost of Living Support (50 Cent Fares Forever) Amendment Bill 2025","slug":"locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"qld","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":"2025-01-01","administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":446103,"registerId":"BILL-QLD-locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025:current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2025-01-01","status":"in_force","reasons":null,"registeredAt":"2026-05-06T12:45:17.907Z"},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"retrieval-0001","sectionType":"document_chunk","heading":"Document excerpt 1","content":"# Locking in Cost of Living Support (50 Cent Fares Forever) Amendment Bill 2025\n\nQueensland\nLocking in Cost of Living\nSupport (50 Cent Fares\nForever) Amendment Bill 2025\n\nQueensland\nLocking in Cost of Living Support (50\nCent Fares Forever) Amendment Bill 2025\nContents\nPage\n1 Short title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n2 Act amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n3 Amendment of s 41 (Other matters to be included in service contracts)\n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n4 Insertion of new s 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n53 Translink fares must be 50c or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4\n5 Amendment of s 62AAC (What is an integrated mass transit service\ncontract) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5\n\n2025\nA Bill\nfor\nAn Act to amend the Transport Operations (Passenger\nTransport) Act 1994 for a particular purpose\n\n[s 1]\nLocking in Cost of Living Support (50 Cent Fares Forever) Amendment Bill 2025\nPage 4\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\nThe Parliament of Queensland enacts—\n1 Short title\nThis Act may be cited as the Locking in Cost of Living\nSupport (50 Cent Fares Forever) Amendment Act 2025.\n2 Act amended\nThis Act amends the Transport Operations (Passenger\nTransport) Act 1994.\n3 Amendment of s 41 (Other matters to be included in\nservice contracts)\nSection 41(1)(ea)—\ninsert—\nNote—\nSee section 53 in relation to fares set by the chief\nexecutive under particular contracts.\n4 Insertion of new s 53\nAfter section 52—\ninsert—\n53 Translink fares must be 50c or less\n(1) In a service contract for a Translink service, the\nchief executive must set the fare for a journey\nusing the service at 50c or less.\n(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the service\ncontract for the Translink service was entered into\nbefore or after the commencement of this section.\n(3) In this section—\nnon-integrated mass transit area see section\n67B.\n1\nClause 2\n3\n4\nClause 5\n6\n7\nClause 8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\nClause 15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n\n[s 5]\nLocking in Cost of Living Support (50 Cent Fares Forever) Amendment Bill 2025\nPage 5\nAuthorised by the Parliamentary Counsel\nTranslink service means—\n(a) a road-based general route service provided\nunder a service contract in a non-integrated\nmass transit area; or\n(b) a general route service provided under an\nintegrated mass transit service contract.\n5 Amendment of s 62AAC (What is an integrated mass\ntransit service contract)\nSection 62AAC(1)—\ninsert—\nNote—\nSee section 53 in relation to fares set by the chief\nexecutive.\n1\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\nClause 7\n8\n9\n10\n11\n12\n13","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"Yes. The amendment moves the Act from a framework that governs the content of service contracts to one that mandates a specific fare level across Translink services. It requires the chief executive to set fares at 50 cents or less for both existing and future service contracts (section 53(1)–(2)). That is a substantive expansion of regulatory control into pricing: the law now prescribes a concrete economic term (the fare) rather than leaving price outcomes to contract mechanisms, tariff policy or executive discretion. Concretely, the amendment (a) imposes a legally binding price cap across integrated and non‑integrated service contracts, (b) applies retroactively to contracts already in force, and (c) creates immediate fiscal and contractual implications (subsidy needs, variation/compensation issues, and potential disputes) that go beyond the original, more general contract‑governance purpose of the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994."},"complexity_factors":["Short instrument: single substantive insertion (new section 53) with 3 subsections.","One new defined term: Translink service (in s53(3)).","Retroactive application clause (section 53(2)) increases legal risk and cross‑reference complexity.","Cross‑references to existing provisions: notes added to s41 and s62AAC; reference to non‑integrated mass transit area in s67B.","Limited conditional logic — mandatory duty with narrow scope (fare ≤50c) and no layered exceptions or numerous defined terms."],"plain_english_summary":"**What this bill does (mechanically)**\n\n- Inserts a new section 53 into the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 requiring the chief executive to set the fare for any journey on a “Translink service” at 50 cents or less (section 53(1)).\n- Makes that requirement apply to service contracts already in force as well as contracts entered into after the amendment starts (section 53(2)).\n- Defines “Translink service” to include (a) road‑based general route services in non‑integrated mass transit areas and (b) general route services under integrated mass transit service contracts (new definitions in the bill; see section 53(3) and related text).\n- Adds notes to two existing provisions (section 41 and section 62AAC) to flag the new section 53 for readers of the Act.\n\n**Who it affects**\n\n- The chief executive responsible for setting fares under the Act — because the bill imposes a mandatory pricing instruction (section 53(1)).\n- Operators who provide Translink services under service contracts — because the bill fixes the maximum fare they may charge (section 53(1)) and applies to existing contracts (section 53(2)).\n- Passengers who use Translink services — because fares will be capped at 50 cents or lower.\n- The State budget and taxpayers — because if operator revenue is reduced as a result, the Government or contract arrangements will need to address the shortfall (see analysis below).\n\n**Why it matters (practical effects, incentives, trade‑offs)**\n\n- It changes pricing from being a commercial outcome negotiated or set within the framework of service contracts to being a legislated cap the chief executive must set (mechanical change: section 53(1)). The chief executive has a mandatory duty, not a discretion, to set fares at 50c or less.\n\n- Retroactivity: the cap applies to contracts already in place as well as to new contracts (section 53(2)). That means existing contractual revenue expectations and payment models could be affected immediately.\n\n- Financial and contractual implications: the cap reduces fare revenue per passenger compared with whatever higher fares operators might previously have been entitled to charge. That creates two basic options in practice:\n  - The Government provides additional subsidy/compensation to the operator under the service contract or by variation; or\n  - Operators absorb the revenue loss, which may lead to renegotiation, reduced service levels, reduced investment, or disputes about contract breach and compensation.\n  The bill does not itself specify how the revenue shortfall is to be funded or how contracts must be adjusted; it simply mandates the fare level (section 53).\n\n- Administrative and compliance effects: the chief executive must set fares at or below 50c and ensure service contracts reflect that requirement (see inserted note to section 41). That requires administrative steps to amend contracts or publish fare settings and may give rise to legal challenges if operators claim compensation for lost revenue.\n\n- Market and competition effects (mechanism, not judgment): by fixing a low fare across Translink services, the amendment changes the commercial return on providing those services. That may affect decisions by private operators to bid for contracts, affect the structure of future contracts (e.g. more guaranteed payments from government, lower variable fare‑based payments), and create incentives for cost reductions or service changes to maintain profitability.\n\n**Implementation risks and concrete trade‑offs**\n\n- Fiscal cost: if the Government chooses to keep service levels and operator viability unchanged, it will need to increase subsidies to make up fare revenue losses. The bill itself is silent on funding (see section 53).\n\n- Contractual risk: applying the cap to existing contracts (section 53(2)) raises the possibility of disputes about compensation, contract variation, or claims for breach if contracts previously allowed higher fares or tied operator payments to fare revenue.\n\n- Operational response: operators may respond by reducing service frequency, postponing investment, changing routes, or seeking other revenue sources (e.g. advertising) depending on contract terms and subsidy arrangements. Those responses change passenger choice and access even though fares are lower.\n\n- Administrative burden: the chief executive and the transport agency must identify all affected contracts, set the required fares, and manage any contract amendments, procurements or dispute resolution that follow.\n\n**Who pays, who decides, and what behaviour changes**\n\n- Who pays: passengers pay ≤50c per journey; the financial burden of the lower fare falls on whoever covers the revenue gap — typically the State via subsidies, or the private operator if no subsidy is provided (mechanical effect of section 53 combined with existing contract arrangements).\n\n- Who decides: the chief executive is legally required to set the fare at 50c or less (section 53(1)). Contracting parties (deliverers) must operate under that fare cap.\n\n- Behaviour changes: operators may alter service provision, bids, or investment plans; government budgets and contract payments may need to change; passengers face lower nominal fares.\n\n**Sections cited**\n- Mandatory fare cap: section 53(1).\n- Retroactive application to existing contracts: section 53(2).\n- Definition and scope of “Translink service”: section 53(3) and related inserted definitions.\n- Notes added to section 41 and section 62AAC to cross‑reference the new section 53.\n\n"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025","history":"/api/acts/locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025/history","analysis":"/api/acts/locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/locking-in-cost-of-living-support-50-cent-fares-forever-amendment-bill-2025/documents"}}