❓ Opposition MP asks the Minister for Transport if he stands by previous statements denying knowledge of UberX's launch, citing FOI documents suggesting otherwise. The Minister defends his statements, stating he was not informed of the exact launch date.
AnsweredQoN 649Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
UBER TAXI SERVICE
649. Ms R. SAFFIOTI to the Minister for
Transport:
I firstly acknowledge the member for
Kwinana for his special birthday he is celebrating today. On behalf of the
member for Warnbro, I also acknowledge in the public gallery today the Fabulous
Fuchsia Follies Red Hat ladies from Secret Harbour.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms
R. SAFFIOTI : I refer to the minister's claims in this house during
the week —
I was not informed about the creation
of uberX.
And —
There has been no indication to me
that uberX was being launched.
Does the minister stand by these
comments, given that freedom of information documents show that, firstly, the minister
was briefed by Uber about its ride-sharing plans six weeks before its launch;
secondly, his department advised him that uberX was likely to be launching,
irrespective of illegalities; thirdly, his office was working with Uber to
develop an interim operating agreement for ride sharing; and, fourthly, his
office was sent Uber's draft media statement ahead of the official
launch of uberX?
649. Ms R. SAFFIOTI to the Minister for
Transport:
I firstly acknowledge the member for
Kwinana for his special birthday he is celebrating today. On behalf of the
member for Warnbro, I also acknowledge in the public gallery today the Fabulous
Fuchsia Follies Red Hat ladies from Secret Harbour.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms
R. SAFFIOTI : I refer to the minister's claims in this house during
the week —
I was not informed about the creation
of uberX.
And —
There has been no indication to me
that uberX was being launched.
Does the minister stand by these
comments, given that freedom of information documents show that, firstly, the minister
was briefed by Uber about its ride-sharing plans six weeks before its launch;
secondly, his department advised him that uberX was likely to be launching,
irrespective of illegalities; thirdly, his office was working with Uber to
develop an interim operating agreement for ride sharing; and, fourthly, his
office was sent Uber's draft media statement ahead of the official
launch of uberX?
AnswerView source ↗
I stand by what I said the other
day. I am very aware of the FOI documents that were requested. I am very aware
of the 25 FOI requests that I have been issued in the last 14 months. As I said
the other day, if there was anything that I have not been aware of or need to
double-check and make sure, if I found that I had incorrectly informed the house,
I would come back and apologise. There is nothing I need to come back and
apologise for. I have got in Hansard what I have said. We all assumed that uberX was going to be launched—it
has been in every other jurisdiction. I have no advice to suggest that I was
given a briefing or otherwise to tell me exactly when it was going to be
launched.
My views on Uber are well
documented. This meeting we had with Uber was on the basis that it believed
that it could launch a legal service. Uber brought evidence of some ruling in
the United States and wanted us to see whether it could actually fall within
the regulatory boundaries in Western Australia. My office had a look at that
and it was found that it was under US law; it could not be agreed to under
Australian law. Uber was advised of that and it was advised of the requirements
under Western Australian law.
day. I am very aware of the FOI documents that were requested. I am very aware
of the 25 FOI requests that I have been issued in the last 14 months. As I said
the other day, if there was anything that I have not been aware of or need to
double-check and make sure, if I found that I had incorrectly informed the house,
I would come back and apologise. There is nothing I need to come back and
apologise for. I have got in Hansard what I have said. We all assumed that uberX was going to be launched—it
has been in every other jurisdiction. I have no advice to suggest that I was
given a briefing or otherwise to tell me exactly when it was going to be
launched.
My views on Uber are well
documented. This meeting we had with Uber was on the basis that it believed
that it could launch a legal service. Uber brought evidence of some ruling in
the United States and wanted us to see whether it could actually fall within
the regulatory boundaries in Western Australia. My office had a look at that
and it was found that it was under US law; it could not be agreed to under
Australian law. Uber was advised of that and it was advised of the requirements
under Western Australian law.
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.