❓ Question regarding the timing of changes to the Perth Parking Management Act 1999 in relation to the Auditor General's report on the Perth parking levy. The Minister denies the changes were made to alleviate the report's findings and outlines the government's vision for Perth's revitalisation.
AnsweredQoN 38Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PERTH PARKING MANAGEMENT ACT — REFORM
38. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the Auditor General's report on the
McGowan government's management of the Perth parking levy, which was
tabled today. Was the Minister for Transport's hastily prepared
announcement on Tuesday, approving changes to the Perth Parking Management Act
1999, simply made to alleviate a confronting report that found the government
had approved funding that did not comply with the act or, in scope, with the
policy?
38. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Transport:
I refer to the Auditor General's report on the
McGowan government's management of the Perth parking levy, which was
tabled today. Was the Minister for Transport's hastily prepared
announcement on Tuesday, approving changes to the Perth Parking Management Act
1999, simply made to alleviate a confronting report that found the government
had approved funding that did not comply with the act or, in scope, with the
policy?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for that
question, and of course the answer is no. In relation to this issue, I am very
happy to get the question. I am very happy, because we have an
opportunity to go forward and improve the amenity and many of the assets in the
City of Perth. We know that we need more people living in the city. The more
people living in the city, the more financially sustainable is the city, the
more secure and safe is the community and the more businesses are supported. We
believe we need a strategy to support more people living in the city. We have
been trying to advocate for that. That is why, together with the federal
government, nearly $1.5 billion between Edith Cowan University, the state and
the federal government has been injected into the Perth City Deal. That
includes a number of projects, like the relocation of ECU into the site,
transport initiatives across the entire area and more university
representation. A significant amount is going into that project. I look forward
to working with the city to keep going.
We believe that we should
enter into a discussion about the Perth parking levy and using it to support
the commercial sector and the residential sector to make it easier for
people to live in the city. We know that only by having thousands more people
in that city are we going to change the way the city is viewed and how we can
get more activity every day of the year.
I went through the four issues yesterday in relation to the
current act, including the scope. We want to make sure that we can expand the
use of those funds. On the boundary issue, I want to make another key point. We
do not want to expand the boundary to collect more revenue outside the existing
boundary; we want to be able to spend for interconnecting services and
infrastructure. The example is the Perth CAT. We had to change the boundary of
the Perth parking levy to go down little roads all the way through Nedlands to
ensure that we could fund the new CAT bus. We do not want to keep changing the
boundary to facilitate new services and infrastructure. Everyone supports that
idea. Of course another key point, as I said, is to continue to support
investing more money. I think any mayor would support having more money spent
in their area to bring more people to live in their area. That is what we are
trying to do.
In relation to the particular of the member's
question, we have been working on this issue for months and many years because
of all the issues raised. As I said, the development industry comes in and
believes there should be differential rates. It does not believe there should
be a standard rate across the entire area. That is something I am very keen to discuss. During the COVID pandemic,
we were asked to waive the levy. The legislation does not allow us to do
that, so we had to do it through administration purposes. We welcome the
recommendations in the report today and we continue to work to reform that levy
to bring more benefit to the Perth CBD, the ratepayers and the entire
community.
question, and of course the answer is no. In relation to this issue, I am very
happy to get the question. I am very happy, because we have an
opportunity to go forward and improve the amenity and many of the assets in the
City of Perth. We know that we need more people living in the city. The more
people living in the city, the more financially sustainable is the city, the
more secure and safe is the community and the more businesses are supported. We
believe we need a strategy to support more people living in the city. We have
been trying to advocate for that. That is why, together with the federal
government, nearly $1.5 billion between Edith Cowan University, the state and
the federal government has been injected into the Perth City Deal. That
includes a number of projects, like the relocation of ECU into the site,
transport initiatives across the entire area and more university
representation. A significant amount is going into that project. I look forward
to working with the city to keep going.
We believe that we should
enter into a discussion about the Perth parking levy and using it to support
the commercial sector and the residential sector to make it easier for
people to live in the city. We know that only by having thousands more people
in that city are we going to change the way the city is viewed and how we can
get more activity every day of the year.
I went through the four issues yesterday in relation to the
current act, including the scope. We want to make sure that we can expand the
use of those funds. On the boundary issue, I want to make another key point. We
do not want to expand the boundary to collect more revenue outside the existing
boundary; we want to be able to spend for interconnecting services and
infrastructure. The example is the Perth CAT. We had to change the boundary of
the Perth parking levy to go down little roads all the way through Nedlands to
ensure that we could fund the new CAT bus. We do not want to keep changing the
boundary to facilitate new services and infrastructure. Everyone supports that
idea. Of course another key point, as I said, is to continue to support
investing more money. I think any mayor would support having more money spent
in their area to bring more people to live in their area. That is what we are
trying to do.
In relation to the particular of the member's
question, we have been working on this issue for months and many years because
of all the issues raised. As I said, the development industry comes in and
believes there should be differential rates. It does not believe there should
be a standard rate across the entire area. That is something I am very keen to discuss. During the COVID pandemic,
we were asked to waive the levy. The legislation does not allow us to do
that, so we had to do it through administration purposes. We welcome the
recommendations in the report today and we continue to work to reform that levy
to bring more benefit to the Perth CBD, the ratepayers and the entire
community.
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.