|
Mr MIKE BAIRD (Manly) [4.50 p.m.]: I support the shadow Minister for Transport, the member for Willoughby, in opposing the Parking Space Levy Bill 2009 and suggesting that it be referred to an upper House committee to do the work that should have been done before the bill was brought to this place. Reducing cars and traffic congestion in the Sydney central business district is an objective we all support. But this legislation is not about achieving that goal. Once more, we have a quick grab for cash from a government that is desperate to fill the holes in its leaking budget. The Government's failure to consult with key stakeholders on this legislation shows that this is nothing more than an opportunity to plug a hole in a leaking budget.
The consequences of the bill appear to be that jobs will move out of the city—I will touch on the irony of that shortly—an extra tax will be imposed on businesses when they can least afford it, more pressure will be placed on our public transport system with no plans to deal with that from what we can determine, and the loss of affordable parking for people who need it simply to get to work. The member for Cabramatta spoke about that, but we will cite examples from Darling Harbour and areas of my electorate. It is suggested that the bill is about protecting the environment. However, the bill is a missed opportunity to engage in consultation and to create a sustainable city of Sydney. If introduced properly, the legislation could have significant impacts in terms of creating the sort of city we want to live in. I acknowledge the vision of the member for Sydney with regard to these initiatives, and I am aware that she will speak about that.
Certainly the bill is an opportunity missed. It does not provide discounts for hybrid cars or carpooling, it does not provide incentives for car sharing, and it does not provide for more spaces for bikes. All those matters should be front and centre in the bill. Yet the Labor Government has failed to put the people first, to think strategically, and to think broadly about the sort of city we want and how we can support it with legislation such as this. For those reasons the Opposition will seek to have the levy deferred until proper consultation has taken place, the impact of the change is determined, amendments are made to support more sustainable modes of transport, and details are provided on how the funds have been, and will be, used. The member for Cabramatta went through a list that was provided to him. However, based on the Auditor-General's comments, no ideas have been offered as to how these funds have been used. That is one of our major criticisms with regard to the bill.
The parking space levy was introduced in 1992. It was designed to discourage parking in key city areas and promote the use of public transport, which are initiatives the Opposition totally supports. From what we can determine, the parking space levy remains the sole source of income for the Public Transport Fund. The levy is supposed to provide funding to improve public transport, including funding for capital works such as multi-use interchanges for rail, bus, ferry and taxi services, and parking at transport interchanges. The current levy is $950 and, importantly, has been increasing in accordance with the consumer price index [CPI]. The Opposition cannot understand why the Government decided, without any foresight, to raise the levy by almost 30 times the CPI. The shadow Minister spoke about the quantum of the increase, and her concerns are very much justified.
The purpose of the bill is to discourage the use of cars in key areas of Sydney. The bill extends the areas now covered by the levy to include parts of the following areas: the City of Sydney, North Sydney, Milsons Point, and the central business districts of Bondi Junction, Chatswood, Parramatta and St Leonards. The levy will increase in the Sydney central business district and North Sydney area from $950 to $2,000. In the other areas it will rise from $470 to $710. The benefit of the levy to the budget is $58 million annually. The Opposition proposes that the legislation be deferred. We question the timing of it and its provisions, and the quantum of the levy increase. All those matters should be investigated by the upper House committee.
This goes to the core of what the Auditor-General is concerned about. The bill allows for the money raised, which goes into the Public Transport Fund, to be used for anything the Government wants. Despite the claims that have been made, clause 11 (3) (e) provides that there is payable out of the Public Transport Fund "money that is directed to be paid from the Fund by or under this or any other Act". In other words, the funds raised can by used under any Act of Parliament. That is an example of why we have concerns about how these funds have been, and will be, used. Why have a clause that says that at any point in time the funds raised can be used for whatever purpose the Government chooses? The funds should be directed solely to creating a sustainable city and improving public transport.
The Government's lack of homework on the bill is stark. We ask that the Minister respond to this point and explain how the Government got to this position. We ask the Minister to explain why the stakeholders were not consulted in relation to the levy. The first that parking operators knew about the levy was when the mini-budget was brought down. It is an insight into the Government's culture of decision making and the processes that go on within the Government. The Government's attitude is, "We don't need to consult. We are happy to look for opportunities to raise revenue and to forget about the consequences. We'll just get on and do it." If the Government did its homework and engaged in consultation with the stakeholders it would find that not only would it potentially be able to raise the revenue it is looking for but it would create strategic opportunities to create sustainable cities, and at the same time reduce congestion and invest in public transport. Consultation must be at the core of legislation.
Another issue of concern is economic modelling. I will ask the Treasurer to release the modelling—if it exists, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response—to show how many of the 36,000 car spots are likely to become vacant and the impact on public transport. If the levy is raised and there are fewer cars on the road, we ask: In what areas will there be fewer cars, what public transport links are provided for people, and are those public transport links adequate? They are fundamental questions and I look forward to seeing the modelling. There is no doubt that our public transport cannot cope at the moment. The modelling should also show what impact the levy will have on jobs in the central business district. A group of mums in my electorate have raised with me that because of the timing regarding child care they have no option but to drive their cars to the central business district. Some of them park their cars in areas around the Sydney central business district such as Darling Harbour, which has a cheap parking rate of about $12 a day. Given the limited public transport options, what will be the impact of the levy on those mums and other people who drive into the city so they can get home to look after their children?
Will we see jobs go as a result of this levy? The levy is another cost imposed on businesses that are doing it tough. We have all heard that 200 jobs a day are being lost in New South Wales. We do not want more jobs to be lost. The car parking industry believes the impact of the levy is that potentially the industry will lose 10 per cent to 15 per cent of its workforce—which is about 3,000 jobs. We need information about that. I am sure the modelling will reveal the figures, but I am interested to hear how the levy has been determined. The modelling will also give an insight into how the Government goes about its decision making. We are already the State of no confidence. If we want another reason for businesses to move interstate, this sort of process provides it. In the Sensis Business Index released a couple of weeks ago Christena Singh said:
It is the first time in the 15 year history of the report that we have seen business confidence at negative levels in any state or territory.
It is ironic that Graeme Wedderburn uses the Parliament to try to get everyone on the Government side to forget that the mini-budget existed and to simply talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. Here we have a new levy being introduced that may well have a significant impact on jobs yet the Government provides no modelling on it. The Government simply does not care; it chooses to forget about reality. As I have said before, public transport is absolutely overloaded. With regard to planning, today we heard about a proposed CBD metro that has no public transport links to it. Again, the Government's decision making is lacking. Through my research I found that some of the funds raised under a number of existing levies have not been collected. In terms of trusting the Government to implement a new levy, a good start would be to make sure it collects funds raised under its existing levies.
I can cite a number of individual cases in St Leonards and Chatswood in which the Office of State Revenue did not collect any revenue for six years. In one case, the owner was not even aware of the liability because he thought he was out of the zone, being in Greenwich instead of St Leonards. He then received a bill from the Office of State Revenue saying, "We want your six years of tax, and by the way the interest is 15.75 per cent." Clearly the question must be asked: Does the Government know what it is doing in relation to this levy? I will refer to the Auditor-General in a moment. Surely the Government needs to be confident that it has collected all the funds raised under its existing levies. The Minister for Roads in 2000, the Hon. David Campbell, said in relation to the Parking Space Levy Amendment Bill:
A significant provision of this bill is the legislative requirement that the revenue raised is quarantined, earmarked, targeted—whatever word one wants to use—to the stated purpose of improving public transport infrastructure and its development. No ifs, no buts; it is a clear and unequivocal legislative requirement.
When we look at what the Auditor-General said, those comments made back in 2000 were nothing but words. How can we trust how those funds will be used without far more transparency? The Opposition will ask the upper House committee to look at exactly how those funds are to be used. It wants to see the fund allocation process of the Government and to understand how the funds have been used and where they are going. The Opposition maintains that the levy should be deferred until the Government has modelled the impact of increased levies on existing businesses and current jobs, has considered all possible exemptions for the use of carpooling, hybrids and bikes to encourage more sustainable transport, and has developed a vision of a modern sustainable city. However, the detail of the levy makes little reference to those aspects, and a real opportunity has been missed. The Opposition would ask the committee to look at those options and would suggest that perhaps 25 per cent of car parking in the central business district should be set aside for car pool spaces, to start the behavioural changes that are needed to reduce congestion.
Another option is to improve public transport so that fewer people use cars. Those are the sorts of ideas that should be seriously considered. The Opposition also seeks a review of the timing of applications given the costs to be paid upfront by operators and their inability to pass on some of those costs because of the length of leases. That review should be part of any consultation. All parking operators have to pay the fee on 1 July and their leases will run through the year. Businesses will be asked to bear the burden of the Government's levy but some will not be able to pass it on. What will be the impact on the jobs of people that businesses do pass the levy on to? Also, fringe car parking should be allowed in Darling Harbour or St Leonards to help mitigate the congestion that is creeping into the central business district. I ask all members to have a close look at the 2007 report of the Auditor-General before voting. I quote these very pointed remarks of the Auditor-General:
There are no criteria for how the funds available from the Parking Space Levy are allocated in aggregate to interchanges, car parks, bus ways, bus layovers, transit ways and the like. We noticed no evaluations of how this expenditure furthered the object of discouraging car use in those business districts bearing the tax.
In other words, there is no process. We do not know how the funds are being used. They have no connection with reducing congestion: it is about the cash! The Auditor-General says it! It really is an indictment of the Government that today it had another chance to do it properly yet it has completely fluffed it. The Opposition emphasises that this is an opportunity for a green solution. The Opposition opposes the bill because it is an example of the Government's rushed attempts to put documents together. The Government also rushed through its loosely termed mini-budget, but the Government side of the House seems to have forgotten that.
This bill does nothing more than fill a gap in the budget. It is not part of a considered strategy. It is not about reducing congestion. It is not about creating a sustainable city. Its purpose is to fill a hole in the budget. All members would like less traffic congestion. The bill is not a solution to that problem. I believe the bill will make things worse and will also impact on jobs. All stakeholders need to work together to determine how the long-term objective can be achieved. The green alternative needs to be considered. People should not be penalised individually for the Government's mismanagement of its finances. The bill is an example of all that is wrong with the Government. The upper House committee will provide an opportunity to consult with the industry to help reduce congestion, provide incentives for creating a sustainable city and, ultimately, improve public transport.
|
