Passenger Transport (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 November 2017.)

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:58): This bill amends the Passenger Transport Act 1994 and makes related amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. The bill flows from reforms and changes in the small passenger transport point-to-point industry and the entry of Uber and other ride-sharing providers into a more deregulated market in South Australia. It delivers on previous public commitments to introduce tougher penalties by the government for breaches and to placate concerns within the industry in areas where the initial accreditation and compliance structures put in place by the government to meet the new environment have clearly been poorly negotiated, cumbrous and lacking in resources for compliance enforcement and have left the public at potential risk and the industry in disarray.

The bill broadly expands penalties for anybody providing unlicensed or unaccredited passenger transport services and gives added powers to transport safety compliance officers to deal with new point-to-point models. Tougher penalties will apply to drivers, operators, company executives and directors who seek to circumvent the legal framework, with penalties increasing across the Passenger Transport Act.

As an example, the current penalty for operating a service without appropriate accreditation carries a maximum division 3 fine of $30,000. The proposed penalty will be $35,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences. Along with increased penalties, demerit points and disqualifications will also be in place as a deterrent to those who may seek to avoid penalties for operating without required criminal, medical or safety checks by having a third party pay fines on their behalf. Repeat offenders will therefore, through demerit and disqualification, be prevented from driving.

Under the provisions of the bill, there is a corporate multiplier of five times if the offence is committed by a corporation. The bill also enables an automatic temporary suspension of accreditation of a driver who is charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment, with the Passenger Transport Standards Committee overseeing the fairness of any such decision.

As the alternative to prosecution for unintentional breaches, there will be enforceable voluntary undertakings allowing a more cooperative approach where it is felt remedial action of this kind by the offender is the best recourse. While undertakings are voluntary, they create a legal obligation, with sanctions applying for failure to fulfil. To address the changing and evolving nature of point-to-point business models, the bill inserts extraterritorial provisions to reinforce the Passenger Transport Act and its regulations applying to all providers, regardless of whether the parent company is based in an Australian jurisdiction or overseas.

With regard to compulsory third-party insurance, the government has reasserted their belief that point-to-point drivers are on the road more than private drivers and therefore their premiums should be higher. Of course, it should be noted that South Australia has amongst the highest third-party insurance for the taxi industry, in particular. As a comparison, a taxidriver operating in South Australia will pay third-party insurance of about $6,000 a year compared to a taxidriver in Victoria, which will be around about $1,200 or so a year. It is a significant difference.

I would suggest that the difference is more that the Victorian system is market driven and based on accidents and the cost those accidents have to the insurance scheme, whereas, over time, because of the monopoly nature of CTP insurance in South Australia and the fact of the heavily regulated taxi industry, CTP insurance is seen as being a cash cow for governments to increase the rate of insurance as a way of getting more revenue that eventually returns back to the government through dividends paid through the MAC.

It will be interesting to see what happens to third-party insurance premiums when the third-party insurance system is fully deregulated. At the moment, there has obviously been some deal done with the three private providers where they are still able to charge very high third-party insurance, even though it is a version of a private sector process, but we are not seeing the full impacts of an open market there.

Unfortunately, taxi operators in South Australia paid a price for the premium that the government has achieved through the sell-off of the Motor Accident Commission because their third-party insurance premiums have been artificially increased over the years. They were locked in at that very high rate before the process was handed over to the private sector and they are stuck in that position for the first three years of the new scheme.

It will be very difficult for taxidrivers to compete while they are paying such a high premium compared with other states. The market is difficult and very cyclical. There are different parts of the day and different parts of the year where you can be sitting around for an hour between a $30 or $40 job, from which you must pay all your costs. I certainly do not envy taxidrivers in this current environment.

What they need is a more vibrant economy in South Australia where there is more discretionary spending on things like entertainment, where people might go out for the evening and decide to leave their car at home. I am sure they are benefiting at the moment from the chaos in the public transport system; however, we certainly would not like to see one system suffer in order for another system to improve. We would like to see growth in that area for the taxi industry and for public transport in South Australia.

The bill amends the Motor Vehicle Act 1959 to ensure that drivers with incorrect CTP insurance are required to pay the higher premiums, with fines and the ability for insurers to recover moneys from those contravening the act. While the industry has concerns regarding the cost and lack of flexibility of the current CTP model, as I said earlier, I agree with them. It needs reform to make it fairer. I would like to speak about something that came from one of South Australia's three taxi companies.

They were a bit surprised that they were not aware of the bill, and I am not sure what happened there. They raised concerns which the minister might be able to cover in his closing remarks, or we can go into committee to try to get some clarification. Their concerns relate to the transport booking service covered under new section 28B of the bill, which states:

(2) In determining whether a person (the service provider) operates a transport booking service, it does not matter—

(a) whether or not the passenger transport service is provided by the driver as an agent or employee of the service provider;

I think the booking agencies have concerns, and this goes back to the collection of the $1 fee that the government imposed on the taxi industry, hire-car industry and the ride-sharing industry. At the moment, as I understand it, the driver is responsible for collecting this fee.

This part of the bill changes that emphasis to it being collected by the booking agency, which if course is very easy for the app-based agencies. However, in certain circumstances, it is much more difficult for the traditional booking agencies of the three South Australian cab companies. What was raised with me was that there are more and more arrangements where a booking is made directly with a taxidriver by mobile phone, and there are collections from the side of the road or from taxi ranks, and the booking agency has no control over the booking itself or the hail of that cab. Although, if the meter is turned on, the fare would fix that problem.

In the industry, I have been told that often there will be the case where a negotiated cash payment between the driver and the passenger will be made. It is in that situation, of course, where penalties could apply to the booking agency when they had no idea that that transaction had even taken place. I will ask the minister if that is something that has had some consideration and if that interpretation that I have been made aware of is correct and whether it is something that might be able to be dealt with between the houses.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (17:10): The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure's Passenger Transport (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2017 is, I believe, the next step in following the widespread reforms to the taxi and chauffeur vehicle industry introduced into South Australia last year, and for these reasons, obviously, I support the bill.

The way point-to-point passenger transport services are provided has changed. New models of service delivery have entered the market and the old models have evolved in response. Consumers demand to have the freedom and right to choose the type of small passenger transport service that best responds to their needs. Whenever I visit our sons in Sydney or Melbourne, I am certainly acutely aware of their ability to access transport for us to go wherever we have to go. I am not quite at the cutting edge of technology that they are, but I can see that it is meeting the needs of those younger people.

The state government's reforms have delivered a level playing field that can adapt to the evolving needs of the 21^st century customer and, regrettably, I am stuck in the previous century. The introduction of the reforms have allowed new service providers with new technologies to enter the industry. These reforms have also made the industry more competitive and sustainable by cutting fees and red tape and assisting existing participants to adjust to new competitors. I am pleased to note that this bill will provide even further protections and safeguards for both the industry and passengers while ensuring the transport safety compliance officers have the additional powers they need to effectively work in the new business environment and with the new technologies which have transformed the industry.

The state government has worked extremely hard to find the right balance between the community's demand for more choice, better passenger vehicles and service and the need to improve working conditions for drivers without watering down the robustness and/or the effectiveness of the accreditation process. I think that is an extremely important point. The tougher penalties proposed by this bill will be welcomed by the taxi industry. I know that because I have had a few people from the taxi industry knock on my door, as I am sure you have, Deputy Speaker, and it will be welcomed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be a pointless exercise.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Knocking on your door? I thought you have always been very accessible. It will be welcomed by the taxi industry, as over the last year or so I have repeatedly heard the industry request a more fair playing field, and I believe this bill goes a long way to do this. Let me emphasise this point: the increases in penalties will not affect the large majority of industry participants, who are already doing the right thing, and that is mostly the case with all penalties. The taxi industry is quite used to the safety requirements for their vehicles and drivers, and I believe that the industry in the main is supportive of the initiatives that provide greater safety for South Australians and, quite rightly, they should be.

These penalties will, however, hurt those participants in the industry who deliberately set out to not comply with the law and in doing so put their passengers at risk. I do not feel sorry for those people who will be caught out by the increased penalties proposed in this bill. It is correct and proper that they are caught out. In most instances, first offences carry lesser penalties than the second or subsequent offences. Appropriate driver and vehicle accreditation is also about upholding safety on our roads for passengers getting into their vehicles and other road users. If vehicles involved in passenger transport are not inspected, they may be unroadworthy, potentially placing the driver, the passengers and other road users at risk. Of course, they have to be inspected.

Passenger transport vehicles also tend to be on the road more than family cars and therefore have a greater chance of being involved in an accident. No-one can seriously argue that it is not a matter of public safety when someone has a serious criminal record or a conviction related to a reportable child-related offence or a medical condition; clearly it is. Fines may not always deter people from driving when they should not, so I support the introduction of the loss of demerit points and, for repeat offenders, the loss of their licence for up to six months. I believe that this will be very effective in changing and improving the behaviour of industry participants. The introduction of demerit points is also a very important step towards protecting all road users. They target wilful, neglectful and reckless behaviour. They are about upholding safety on our roads while also improving the standard of passenger transport drivers.

As passenger transport drivers are frequently required to transport the most vulnerable members of our community, we place our trust in and rely on these drivers to get us and our loved ones around, so it is critically important that this bill is passed in this place—and I did not get any indication from the opposition that they were not supporting it—to ensure that our safety compliance officers receive the additional powers they require and that the wide range of new penalties for providing an unlicensed or unaccredited passenger transport service is made into law as soon as possible.

In addition to these criminal sanctions, the bill ensures that unaccredited persons and/or companies cannot and will not make a profit at the expense of law-abiding industry participants. Having easy access at your fingertips to a variety of reliable and safe passenger transport options is vital, not only for the people who use these services but also for the long-term sustainability of the industry. It is also a road safety issue. As most in this chamber would know, I was a firefighter for nearly 20 years. I am very proud of that fact, too. During this time, I learnt that the use of passenger transport services such as taxis, chauffeurs and ride share provides an opportunity for the public to make a safe alternative choice in driving, in particular when a person is impaired or tired.

One of the good things about not being in the fire service is that I do not have to attend some of those horrific accidents that I did in the past, accidents that could have been avoided had those people taken the alternative travel arrangements that they can choose today. Using a passenger transport service to get home after a night out and a few drinks will always be the right decision, and having a variety of easily accessible options to do so safely is vital. It also reduces the number of private vehicles on the road. Reducing vehicles on our roads and maximising safe travel options benefits our whole community.

It is the role of the small passenger transport industry utilising taxis, chauffeur and ride-sharing services to provide safe, affordable, responsive and innovative options for travel to the South Australian community. It is the role of the government to provide the legislative framework for this to occur. This bill takes the Passenger Transport Act, which was written in the last century, and transforms it into legislation that enhances opportunities and meets the challenges of providing passenger transport services in the 21^st century without compromising safety or the long-term sustainability of the industry. I commend the bill to the house.