❓ The Treasurer responds to concerns raised by the Auditor General's report regarding inappropriate fee setting practices by government agencies, committing to review and correct identified issues, and emphasizing a commitment to cost recovery rather than taxation.
AnsweredQoN 579Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Treasurer to the Auditor General’s third public sector performance report that was released today. That report found evidence of inappropriate fee setting practices of government agencies; around $20 million or $30 million of over-collections of fees by the sampled agencies; a failure by five of the six sampled agencies to properly disclose pricing policies; and potentially unlawful collections of fees that could therefore be considered taxes, and I ask - (1) Has the Treasurer received advice to confirm the lawfulness of fee collections by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure? (2) Given that the Auditor General found a lack of clear and practical guidance on the setting of fees, does the Treasurer admit that the Government has failed to provide proper leadership on this issue and as a result is overcharging Western Australians millions of dollars? (3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(1) Has the Treasurer received advice to confirm the lawfulness of fee collections by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure? (2) Given that the Auditor General found a lack of clear and practical guidance on the setting of fees, does the Treasurer admit that the Government has failed to provide proper leadership on this issue and as a result is overcharging Western Australians millions of dollars? (3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(2) Given that the Auditor General found a lack of clear and practical guidance on the setting of fees, does the Treasurer admit that the Government has failed to provide proper leadership on this issue and as a result is overcharging Western Australians millions of dollars? (3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(1) Has the Treasurer received advice to confirm the lawfulness of fee collections by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure? (2) Given that the Auditor General found a lack of clear and practical guidance on the setting of fees, does the Treasurer admit that the Government has failed to provide proper leadership on this issue and as a result is overcharging Western Australians millions of dollars? (3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(2) Given that the Auditor General found a lack of clear and practical guidance on the setting of fees, does the Treasurer admit that the Government has failed to provide proper leadership on this issue and as a result is overcharging Western Australians millions of dollars? (3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(3) Will the Treasurer admit also that his failure to do anything of substance to ensure that fee setting is conducted appropriately is just another grab for tax? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
(1)-(3) I agree with the Auditor General: government agencies should charge a fair price for their services; that is, cost recovery. They should not charge more than cost recovery. If they are doing so, they are acting contrary to government policy and our internal administrative instructions. All those cases identified by the Auditor General will be reviewed to examine the individual circumstances and they will be corrected if the circumstances are as the Auditor General has described them, and I have no reason to doubt his analysis. The Government has already acted on one of these issues. The motor vehicle licence recording fee was identified as a fee in which more than cost recovery was collected. The Government corrected that matter in the last budget. We will take the same action with regard to any other fees that are identified as involving more than payment of a fair price or more than the collection of cost recovery. We are on the public’s side on this matter. If we are taxing people, we will be open, honest and accountable about that. We will identify anything that is a tax. We want government agencies to collect cost recovery only. I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
I will make a particular point on this matter. In many cases we are dealing with longstanding historical anomalies. The fees were set at some point in the past and at a base level that was too high. Therefore, when the fee increases come through, because they are adjusted for only the consumer price index and because the agency tells us that the fee is at a cost recovery level, the fact that more money is collected than cost recovery has not come to the Government’s attention. We are tightening the guidelines on that. If an agency receives more than full cost recovery, it will have to own up to the Government in the budget process, whereas under the current guidelines they have been able to skate through by saying it is full cost recovery without admitting it is more than full cost recovery. One agency in particular took the correct action - the Department for Planning and Infrastructure. It drew to the Government’s attention the problem with the recording fee. That minister took up the case and we corrected the matter in the budget.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.