CAR PARKING LEVY

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (15:27): As member for Adelaide, I would like to share with this house some of the concerns raised by residents, businesses and other concerned parties regarding the Transport Development Levy (also known as the car parking tax) for the Adelaide CBD, as proposed in the 2012 Mid-Year Budget Review. We already know that the cost and convenience of car parking is the number one deterrent for people shopping, dining and visiting the city. The car parking tax will provide a further disincentive when travelling to the city for shopping and leisure, as a $750 levy per annum per space will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

Retail and hospitality, as well as vibrancy in the city, will unavoidably suffer as an unintended consequence of this levy. Businesses are already struggling in South Australia, with 264 insolvencies in the March quarter this year, the highest number since records were kept, and 28,000 job losses in the last five months, also the highest recorded in five months since records have been kept. We need to do all we can to support the city, the businesses and the people moving into the city.

The Property Council has condemned the car parking tax, claiming that the tax will make the CBD less attractive for business and only exacerbate the CBD office vacancy situation, which is already at the worst it has been in over a decade. The Adelaide City Council has raised concerns about the introduction of the car parking tax on several occasions, including 26 February this year and 26 March.

The Adelaide City Council estimates the direct cost of the levy in its current form to council will be $6.4 million per annum, which would require a 20 per cent increase on current rates to city ratepayers in order to pay for it. The Adelaide City Council also raised concerns regarding the risk of the levy to retailers that operate within the city. The car parking tax is merely an add-on land tax and will damage businesses in the city rather than growing the economy and making the CBD more vibrant.

I have had many different people contact my office; some of them are residents. With the government's introduction of their stamp duty concessions for first homebuyers and off-the-plan purchases of city apartments, many people have been lured into the city. These are good initiatives; however, with the introduction of the Capital City DPA, the minimum parking requirements have been removed for capital city zone and catalyst sites.

For example, one of my constituents who lives in the Uno apartments does not have a car park. Uno was built with only 36 car parks for the 146 apartments. This person is on a disability pension, and as she does not have any street frontage she is not entitled to a parking permit from the council. There is not a bus that runs down Waymouth Street, and due to her disabilities, she needs to have a car to get around.

At the moment, she moves her car from place to place, sometimes getting vouchers from the council, and sometimes parking in private car parks. She is very concerned that the extra $750 per year added on to the cost of her parking, whether it be on-street or off-street parking, will make it almost impossible for her to afford a car living in the city.

Another resident who was also lured into the city through the stamp duty rebates purchased an apartment on North Terrace that does not have any car parking, so she leases a car park at a monthly cost, and that will also be subject to the $750 car parking tax, which also goes against the whole point of why she moved to the city: to have cheaper living cots.

Businesses are also concerned. The IGA on Gilbert Street that has car parks that it provides for its customers will also now be subject to the $750 tax. St Luke's Church on Whitmore Square leases out their space for car parking in order to run the church and provide vital services for those in need in the area. This affects many, many people. Another example would be if you imagine the Target car park; there are 980 bays there.

At $750 per bay, that would be $735,000 extra per year in cost. If the owner absorbs the cost, the reduction in the revenue would devalue the capital value of the asset, therefore affecting any borrowings against this and other businesses they may own. Over time, he may pass it on and risk losing customers or risk losing them by passing it on immediately. There are many people that will be negatively affected by this. The examples from interstate show that instead of equally—

Time expired.