Bills

Passenger Transport (Point to Point Transport Services) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 February 2025.)

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (11:01): I rise just to make a few remarks regarding some correspondence that I have received from a couple of operators in my electorate in relation to point-to-point transport options and put on the record some of their concerns around this. The first correspondence is an analysis that has been prepared by a gentleman called Brendan Faulds, the owner-operator of Need a Lift? South Coast, and he is a private passenger transporter. His comments start:

The South Australian Government's decision to introduce Uber in regional areas is a bold initiative designed to address the shortcomings in our current public transport services. While the goal of improved mobility is commendable, there are several important questions about whether this model will truly serve our community's unique needs over the long term.

1. Government-Led Initiative vs. Market Demand

This move is primarily government-driven rather than based on proven or perceived local demand. Uber could have easily entered these markets years ago by paying a modest $300 exemption fee. The delay suggests that the company may have recognised inherent challenges in making its model work in regions like ours.

2. Lessons from Similar Regions

Past initiatives, such as the rezoning of the Adelaide Hills from regional to metro, led to unforeseen consequences—rising insurance costs and reports of long wait times (often over an hour) for pickups. Such experiences raise concerns about whether Uber's operations can be smoothly adapted to the distinct challenges of regional areas.

3. Demographic and Technological Concerns

Our community has a higher proportion of older residents, many of whom require specialised services—such as medical transport—and may depend on financial assistance programs (e.g. cab charge subsidies and taxi vouchers). Additionally, the reliance on smart phone technology for booking rides raises an important question: Are many in our community comfortable using such apps? Limited familiarity with digital platforms could leave some residents unable to access these services.

4. Impact on Established Local Services

There is a genuine risk that traditional services, like the Country Taxi Service, might be undermined by the introduction of Uber. These services not only provide transport but also support local employment and offer established financial assistance options. Their potential decline could leave vulnerable passengers with fewer affordable alternatives.

5. Driver Availability and Operational Reliability

Most rideshare drivers are based in urban centres, and they may be reluctant to undertake long, unpredictable journeys—such as trips from the airport to Victor Harbor—without a guaranteed return fare. Without a dedicated local driver base, service reliability in our region could suffer, leading to longer wait times and less dependable service.

6. Infrastructure and Connectivity Limitations

Reliable mobile networks and internet connectivity are critical for the effective operation of any app-based service. In many regional areas, limited connectivity could disrupt ride dispatch systems, resulting in delays and service inefficiencies during critical times.

7. Uncertainty in Pricing and Fare Structures

It remains unclear whether Uber will adopt the same pricing model used in metropolitan areas for regional services. Without transparent information on fares, residents may be concerned about hidden charges, surge pricing during peak demand, or simply higher costs that make the service less affordable.

8. Social Equity and Accessibility

Many local residents, particularly those with disabilities or those requiring regular medical transport, rely on existing financial assistance programs. There is little evidence to suggest that Uber's model has provisions for these vulnerable groups, raising concerns about equitable access to essential services.

9. Cultural and Community Considerations

Regional communities value the personalised, local approach that traditional services offer. A standardised, algorithm-driven service might not align with the cultural expectations of residents who appreciate face-to-face interaction and locally tailored service.

10. The Presence of Uber Does Not Guarantee Service Availability

While the Uber platform may confirm your booking, it does not ensure that a driver will ultimately accept the ride. For instance, consider an 11-minute trip from Milang to Finniss at 8:30 PM. It remains uncertain whether drivers based in areas such as Strath or Victor Harbor would be willing to take on such a short journey, particularly when the return fare is not guaranteed. This raises significant concerns about the reliability of the service for regional residents.

11. Additional Risks to Consider

Data Privacy and Security: Reliance on digital platforms inherently carries risks related to data security. Older residents, who may be less familiar with technology, could be particularly vulnerable to privacy breaches or misuse of personal information.

Reliability During Adverse Conditions: Regional areas often experience challenging weather and environmental conditions. Unlike traditional local services that are accustomed to these challenges, Uber's model may struggle to provide reliable service during emergencies or severe weather.

Loss of Personal Connection: Established local services offer a level of personal care and community understanding that an app-based model might lack. This loss of a personal touch could negatively impact customer satisfaction and trust in the service.

Conclusion

While the intention behind introducing Uber to regional South Australia is to enhance mobility and convenience, the initiative comes with significant risks. From technological and pricing uncertainties to the potential disruption of cherished local services, there are many factors to consider. Given our community's unique demographics, infrastructure challenges, and preference for personalised service, it is essential to monitor this development carefully to ensure it truly benefits our region without compromising the quality and accessibility of essential transport services.

As I said, that is from Brendan Faulds of Need a Lift?, who is an operator in the seat of Finniss.

I also have some comments in relation to one of the local taxi businesses, Orcas Taxis. The owner operator, Vicki Welsh, has also raised concerns going forward. My understanding is that she had a meeting with the minister in relation to these concerns back in October of last year and sent a follow-up letter on 30 October. My understanding is that she has not had a reply to that letter dated 30 October.

Certainly, her concerns are very important. One key question that she raises is a particular issue around the taxi phone number that is currently used, the 13 22 27 number, which is a shared number. Currently, if someone uses that number, if the number is north of Willunga Hill it is sent to the Adelaide call centre and if it is south it is sent to Victor Harbor.

I guess the challenge going forward is: if boundaries are removed, what does that do in relation to that number? Who is going to have to pay for new advertising? Is anyone who keeps using that number going to have an advantage by the fact that they are now getting calls in a region where they previously were not involved? I think there are certainly some concerns of operators in my electorate that I wanted to get on the record.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:11): I want to thank members for their contributions to the parliament on this legislation. This legislation has been a thorough piece of work done by my agency on the basis of an election commitment the Malinauskas government made in 2022. We felt that taxi drivers and point to point needed comprehensive reform. Reform is difficult. Reform has often unintended consequences, but nevertheless this is a good package, and I am exceptionally proud of the work my agency has done in preparing this report and bringing this legislation to the parliament.

It is fair to say that the introduction of Uber had some devastating impacts on the taxi industry in South Australia, especially for a lot of people who had purchased taxis, and this is a small way of us acknowledging the hurt that they suffered through that process. I hope it goes some way to alleviating some of the financial harm that was inflicted upon them.

More broadly, these reforms bring point-to-point transport into the 21^st century, setting us up for a long period of time. It will make sure that our commuters are safe and that we truly integrate point-to-point travel as a public transport tool, ensuring that the state can utilise all forms of public transport to better support South Australians to move and be active, and to participate in our economy and our community. It will create a culture where people are safe in point-to-point travel and where people who are point-to-point operators are rewarded for their labour and their efforts, and it will make sure that regional communities are well served.

I note the member for Finniss's discussion regarding local taxi operators in his electorate. I understand the concern that they have. I also note the volumes of correspondence I have received from his colleagues asking me to lift the metropolitan boundary, so it is horses for courses in these types of debates. I think this is an idea whose time has come. Yes, reform is difficult, but I think it is the right reform, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Minister, can you confirm who was consulted on the bill? What concerns, if any, were raised during that consultation process and how were they addressed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The consultation included the Taxi Council South Australia, United Taxi Association, Chauffeured Vehicle Association, Country Taxis SA, Des's Cabs, 13cabs, Transport Workers' Union, Uber and DiDi. Consultation with an across-agency steering committee was undertaken, comprising representatives of South Australia Police and the Department of Human Services. We also consulted with the CTP Insurance Regulator, SACAT, the Attorney-General's Department and the Courts Administration Authority.

What came out of that consultation? I think it is fair to say that the taxi industry wanted more compensation for the buyback scheme. I think it is fair to say that Uber were concerned about the rollout of cameras and the speed at which cameras would be rolled out in rideshare. People were concerned about the point-to-point levy increase. There was concern about the ability to maintain ply for hire and maintain the integrity of meters and ranks with the taxi industry. There were a number of people who were consulted and concerned about the timeframe for being eligible for the $200,000 buyback plate at the point in time that we had to choose. There were some people who wanted that compensation extended.

There are some people who are investors, who do not live in South Australia, who are not being compensated. They raised concerns about not being compensated or not participating in the buyback. There was a whole range of issues that were raised, as you would expect in a reform like this. There were concerns about the abolition of the standards committee and the new process we were attempting to put in place.

As you would expect in such a comprehensive piece of legislation that is so far-reaching into an industry, there were lots of concerns and a lot of appreciation, but, again, it is about getting clarity on where we go forward. I suppose the biggest concern that I faced throughout this is the length of time taken for the buyback. That has been something that has vexed a lot of cab owners, who are very, very concerned. Of course, there are those people who have since passed on and have left that asset to a partner or an estate, who are looking for compensation as well, so these are things we are having to deal with as well. Verification of ownership is quite difficult in some cases, but by and large it has been a welcome reform. I think the reforms hit the right note, but there are always going to be concerns at the edges.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you, minister. A lot of our questions will be around those issues that you are aware of. We are very aware of the fact that a lot of operators, owners, taxi drivers and rideshare drivers would be listening to this or interested in reading the Hansard, so I am wondering if you are able to point out to those who might have an interest in this bill where parts of the bill are mostly affected by a move away from legislation to regulation for managing the changes. I know that has been raised as a concern, as being perhaps less transparent.

So are you able to speak to the predominant parts of the bill that shift from being detailed in the act and into regulations and the reasons for that and also in which of the main sections we see an increase in the minister's powers? If you are able to get that on Hansard for those who are following this bill to ease their concerns.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Most parts are already in regulation and will be maintained. Definitions of 'ply for hire' will be continued. I suppose the most controversial aspect of this, the levy, will be formulated as part of the regulations and the reason that is being done is that it is very hard for us to know in advance how much levy we will raise in any one year, which means it is very difficult for us then to know how long the buyback will take. Given the length of time required, it is better to have that within the regulations than otherwise.

The other aspect would be, of course, the abolition of the standards board and having that standard set by regulation and the ability for us to remove drivers and enforce standards. The reason for that, member for Unley, is I think we have been dissatisfied with the way the standards board has operated thus far. I have been personally frustrated with some of the complaints made against some operators who you and I in a quiet conversation would not want driving one of our children around given the accusations made against them.

I think that community standards can be enforced better by the way the government is approaching this. I am in the hands of the parliament, obviously, but my concern has been our inability to get some drivers who have behaved appallingly, who have had some serious accusations made against them, removed from the industry under the current system. I think having that ministerial discretion, which would obviously be operated by the agency on a recommendation to me or whoever is in my chair, is a much more efficient way and a much faster way of enforcing community standards in ply for hire and point-to-point travel.

I will give you some real-life examples. There have been some people in the taxi industry who have decided amongst themselves to claim that meters do not need to be turned on. People are quoting trips from the city to Unley and asking for $30 to $40 to $50 without turning the meter on. When they are questioned, they claim that under the act they had a bilateral arrangement with the passenger and therefore it stands.

My view—and I have had some firsthand experience of this—is that that type of behaviour needs to be stamped out very quickly and the integrity of the meter needs to be defended. It has been very difficult to remove those drivers who have had accusations made against them from the industry. I want to stamp out that type of behaviour very quickly.

There are a lot of pensioners, a lot of vulnerable people, who still use taxis rather than rideshare for a number of reasons, such as technology (not wanting to use mobile phone technologies and apps), preferring to talk to an operator, and booking a taxi and having a taxi come knowing they have the safety and regular use of the meter so it gives them a reliable outcome on what they think their fare is going to be. Having pensioners told that the fare now is $30 to go around the corner through some sort of bilateral arrangement and then complaints being made is a difficult way for us to enforce it as we are relying entirely on the operators to enforce that.

I am concerned about the way the standards board has operated and their inability to remove drivers from this, such as drivers who regularly have bald tyres, people who are not repairing basic safety equipment on motor vehicles or making sure seatbelts are monitored. I think there are a number of things that I would like to see enforced in a much faster way and I think the new method of setting standards and having it operated under regulations by the agency, on advice from me, to allow me to remove a driver relatively quickly on the advice of the agency, is the appropriate way. I understand that there will be some people who would look at that process and think that is inherently unfair. What we are trying to regulate here is for the ability of people, who can be very, very vulnerable, to get into a point-to-point travel .

I can give some real-life examples to the parliament. There are some very elderly people, people with disabilities, and our young people—who are using point-to-point travel at night, who might be intoxicated, vulnerable and quite young—who need to be protected. I want to have standards in place where we can regulate for safety and we can act very, very quickly if we find that there are rogue players in the industry and remove them quickly, rather than go through a legislative process that could be quite cumbersome and hard to get someone out. Quite frankly I have reached the point where I think we have to have a bit more zero tolerance when it comes to some of the behaviours that we are hearing about. I accept that some drivers will not like it, but I think this is very, very important.

They are the two main aspects that we are moving into regulation; it is the ability to levy the point to point, the value of the point-to-point levy and the standards board. The rest of the things we are putting into regulations are relatively uncontroversial in my opinion, but I am happy to hear from members if they have other views that they think might be controversial, but they are the two that I think will probably garner most of the debate.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I guess this is more of a supplementary: was there consideration given to throwing out the existing body and rebuilding it to keep that distance from the minister? Like the court system, for example, you cannot have the Attorney-General not happy with court decisions and then saying, 'I am going to decide whether someone is guilty or not and I am going to decide what the punishment is.' Was there consideration given to looking at models interstate or elsewhere that are effective and do remove those risks and those people who are unsuitable for the industry from the industry and, if so, why weren't any of them adopted?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have copied what other jurisdictions have done. I suppose the only differences between us and Victoria is they have an independent commissioner, whereas what I will be doing is delegating my authority to the motor registrar or the department to oversee this. It is a very similar approach to all jurisdictions around the country. Again, this is about timeliness and speed. There is a presumption of innocence when it comes to a court process. I think we need to have a bit more speed and flexibility when it comes to this type of service delivery.

I just want to remind the house and I get back to my point about vulnerability and the people who are using these services. Access cab taxi drivers and Uber rideshare, who move people around on weekends from entertainment venues, hospitals and other institutions, or people who are doing metered fares for our vulnerable, are moving some very vulnerable people around and I think it is important that we have as many protections in place as possible, which is why I think these reforms are appropriate and we are actually bringing ourselves into line with other jurisdictions rather than moving away from them.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Is it a function of the minister in any other jurisdiction in the country?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get this between the houses, but my understanding is either it is a delegated authority to the chief executives of the agencies in other jurisdictions or a commissioner, but any decision made by me, which will be through a delegate—it will not be me making these recommendations; it will be a delegated authority—is, of course, reviewable in SACAT. So if people disagree with my decision, they can go to SACAT and attempt to have it overturned. But my understanding is that either it is a delegated authority to a chief executive, or it is held within the minister, or it is held within the chief executive. Only Victoria has some sort of independent commission that oversees this.

In terms of the broad structure of the way the passenger transport standards will be accounted for, we are doing it in a national approach. I have to say, I have faith in my officers, just as members opposite did when they were in office. This is not the type of thing ministers will get into day to day; this will be the type of thing that would be a delegated authority, much the same way with mining licence applications. Even though, technically, they are made to me, my agencies assess them and make recommendations to me. I see this as being no different from any other ministerial approval process that is in place.

Given that this is the ability to take someone's job away, I think it is important there be some democratic oversight by a minister to be able to reach in and say, 'Maybe the standards board has been too harsh in this case.' I think the ability to go in if we need to is probably a good thing. That is the way I see it operating, but I am open to suggestions. If there is some other way the members feel would be more appropriate, I am happy to consider it between the houses.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Finally, on that—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, I have been generous. I have given you four questions.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just one final one on this, if I may?

The CHAIR: Fine.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just a request for the minister, if he is able to provide any statistics on those behavioural issues.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get that between the houses.

Mr TELFER: Minister, could you commit to an annual report detailing the number of new accreditations for drivers booking services, the number of reasons for cancellations or suspensions, and the outcomes of any appeal, as a regular reporting mechanism?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is the requirement under the act already: 24A—Annual report. I would imagine that that information is already going to be included. It is the sort of thing that we would include. If we are terminating someone's licence or suspending them, it is the sort of thing we would report. In terms of the information that we have that we can make publicly available, of course we would—that is the nature of annual reports—but it is overwhelmingly public transport focused.

Mr TELFER: Obviously, as you have pointed out in your contributions, this is an area where there is a lot of interest and a lot of watching, and a need to be open and transparent throughout that process. Would you also be open to publicly publishing performance data such as point-to-point usage in regional areas, passenger wait times or compliance actions taken so that both industry and the public can see how these reforms are actually working in practice?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It would be very difficult after this, because this is not a publicly delivered service: this is a privately delivered service that we are regulating. It would be very difficult for us to assess information from rideshare and regional taxis on their performance levels because these are private contractors, and they are entering into a private contract with someone to move around. We just regulate it.

It would be an overwhelming bureaucracy to put on regional taxis for them to report to government their on-time service running. I am not sure we can do that, but in terms of infringements, the number of taxi licences, the amounts that are being collected through infringement notices and the like, I am sure we would do all that. However, in terms of service delivery it would be very difficult for us to collect that, and I suspect there would be a lot of red tape that could push people out of the industry.

There is a fine line here. What we are attempting to do is create a regulatory framework where a private operator can operate a taxi or run a rideshare vehicle and make money. We want to regulate to a point where we can provide consumers with safe transport—that is, a roadworthy motor vehicle and someone who is driving it who is competent and safe. We would have the appropriate risk-based approach to checking all that, but if we put too much bureaucracy over the top and treat this like a government delivery service or an emergency department, or police response times or ambulance response times, that would be a very large regulatory burden on operators, and I would suspect what you would find is they do not arrive.

We do have a level of reporting for access cabs, a very small number of taxis, and that is overwhelmingly done for us by the public, who call in and let us know. I am not sure whether what the member is asking for is actually deliverable and, if it were, I think it would be counterproductive.

Mr TELFER: I guess it's about trying to have an understanding of usage and at what level that usage is appropriate, especially in areas where there is a new service coming in or a service that is going to be competing with an existing one.

Minister, have you discussed vehicle age limits with the Chauffeured Vehicle Association; if so, what was the outcome of those discussions? Will there be scope within the regulations to allow for vehicles that are roadworthy to continue operating past the current vehicle age limits, as they do in other states?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a great deal of sympathy for the chauffeur drivers on this issue; I know that their competitors in Victoria are able to operate their chauffeured vehicles for a lot longer. I want to see a viable industry, and for us here it is about commuter safety. Some of the augmented vehicles, the stretch limousines, are bespoke and really have only one use, so they are very keen to see these vehicles operate a lot longer. I am just interested in making sure that we regulate for safety.

I want to see a viable industry and I am more than happy to see an extension. What we are negotiating here is how we do that without putting an onerous regulatory burden on them, while at the same time allowing them to work their assets a lot harder and longer. I am a lot more liberal on this than I have been in the past. I think this is something we can work on, and I am very, very sure that we can get something.

I have just been advised that in New South Wales, Victoria, WA and Tasmania they have no restrictions on age: and Queensland is at 30 years. I will just check that and get back to the house. So I am up for a change here. The question is: how long are we consulting?

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Regarding the definition of 'centralised booking service', the question here, minister, is: will drivers who hand off a booking to another driver be required to obtain booking service accreditation?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You cannot do it independently. Only a CBS can dispatch work.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: The opposition has heard that regional operators can be especially vulnerable or feel as though they are especially vulnerable if rideshare drivers appear only in high-demand seasons and exit when demand fails. We have also been told of uncertainty about whether a driver can operate both a taxi and a rideshare vehicle simultaneously. I suspect that means the same vehicle in that process, as we understand is the case in Victoria.

My question is: will the bill or regulations include measures to prevent or at least manage cherrypicking of lucrative times/places by rideshare, leaving gaps in off-peak services? Does the minister anticipate allowing drivers to switch freely between taxi and rideshare, and how might that affect the distinct rank and hail exclusivity that taxis have traditionally held? How would a taxi driver, for example, transition—a taxi licence transition—into also wanting to be a rideshare under these changes?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It will be an offence to be a taxi driver and operate a rideshare app so, no, they will be separate, but I go back to my original point about these reforms. Let's take a hypothetical regional community—a seaside community—that has a very large cohort of retirees with a level of base operations for a taxi fleet of, say, 10 to 14 taxis. You swell up, let's say, at end-of-year school celebrations and New Year's Eve, say about 30 to 40 kilometres from Adelaide.

People are concerned that during those peak tourism periods, rideshare will come in and do lots of work and be able to take all that and leave. Well, under these reforms nothing stops a taxi company doing exactly the same: gearing up, putting more taxis on the road, getting them accredited in the same way that Uber or DiDi will. Remember, there will not be a restriction on the number of taxi plates that can be available in country areas, and there will be no restriction on the number of taxi plates in the metropolitan area.

We are looking at balancing the competitive nature of the point-to-point industry because currently taxis are limited to a thousand and currently there are about three and a half thousand Ubers or rideshare vehicles, so they have a competitive advantage. Under these reforms, there will be no cap on the number of taxis. The government will own all the plates and we will just offer them to people who wish to apply to have a taxi, to use ranks and apply for hire and metered fares. But you cannot do both. You are either a taxi driver or you are a rideshare vehicle; you cannot do both.

That might be a reform that members opposite might want at a later date. I am open-minded to reforming once we have taken away licence rights; that is, once we have resumed these rights from people and compensated them, I am a lot more relaxed about the way we reform things. I suppose my overwhelming principle here is that people paid for the right to apply for hire and use cab ranks and call themselves a taxi.

Then the government came in over the top and said, 'We are legalising a competitor to come in.' To be fair to the then Weatherill government, they had overwhelming support from the opposition at the time calling for it, to allow Uber or rideshare in. This is a way of rectifying that and probably going back to what we should have done at the very beginning: buying these taxis back and then allowing, basically, a deregulated market with some regulated aspects over the top where we regulate for safety and maintain the integrity of the meter and the ability of taxis to apply for hire.

There will be no restriction on the number of taxis in metropolitan Adelaide and there will be no restriction in country regions. If there is going to be a massive amount of people flood into a regional community, a local taxi operator will make an economic decision about whether or not it is worthwhile them putting vehicles on, in the same way as rideshare operators will make an economic decision about whether they go and service that area. It will simply be down to an economic decision and all we are doing is regulating for safety with the appropriate regulatory guardrails in place. That is it.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Just picking up on that point, will there be a difference in the cost of a taxi licence and Uber registration? To your point that there are three and a half thousand Ubers and a thousand taxis, my understanding is that the vast majority of Ubers are part-time, they are cars that are owned by the family or whatever, whereas the vast majority of taxis are full-time. Often many of the taxis run 24 hours, which is very rare for an Uber situation, as I have been advised. Is the minister able to give an indication as to what the cost of the annual taxi licence will be and how that compares with interstate equivalents?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: We have not yet decided that. We will wait until the legislation passes and then consult with the industry. I think it is not right to say that Uber drivers are part-time. I think it is fair to say—

The Hon. D.G. Pisoni: Predominantly.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I question that. I think there are large fleets of Uber vehicles—large fleets. People own vast numbers of vehicles that are being operated by Uber drivers that are out in the system. I think the days of someone doing the school run, dropping their kids off and thinking, 'I will make a few extra dollars doing an Uber ride on the way' are over. I think Uber drivers are professional drivers. I think they are doing it as a full-time job. I do not think this is people who are driving to work, downloading an app and then doing work. This is now a professional driver industry the same way taxis are. They are operating as taxis, other than having the metered fare and the ability to hail and use ranks.

I disagree with the member there. I think Uber now is behaving in exactly the same way as taxis, other than being hailed. We are seeing a large number of these vehicles, rideshare vehicles, taking customers illegally, especially at very large events or in the evening and especially on weekends when they are actually operating illegally as taxis, pulling up to ranks and taking customers from being hailed, rather than booked on an app, and then a bilateral negotiation occurring in the rideshare vehicle.

So it is not true to say that there is this image of the Uber driver who just downloads the app and makes a bit of extra money on the side. These are professional drivers, the overall majority of them, who are operating basically a fleet that is doing full-time point-to-point travel. That is the intelligence that I have from the taxi industry and from some Uber operators as well who own large, vast fleets of vehicles that are leased out to people who operate them as Ubers, and they are operating them as a business.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): Member for Unley, that was your third question just then, but I might—

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I just have a supplementary on this one.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): If you had a further one, I think the minister would entertain it? Yes.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: On that basis, then—and I accept your update on my understanding of how rideshare has evolved since the last time I had an interest in this area—would it be reasonable to expect that the cost of an annual taxi licence would be similar to that of operating an Uber?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Certainly, what I am very keen to do is to try to equalise the costs. I am very concerned about compulsory third-party premiums, so I am very keen to see those equalised. I still find it amazing that compulsory third-party premiums are higher on taxis than they are on Uber vehicles. I find that very interesting and I think in some way it has fallen through the gaps there.

So, yes, I am very keen to make sure the cost is minimal, but at the same time there is a value in owning or operating a taxi. People know in advance what the fee is per kilometre and what the flag fare is. You know that the vehicle is regularly inspected. You can be dropped off to ranks and picked up at ranks without having to book. You can hail a taxi. Taxis are generally—without wanting to offend people and set the hares running—better professional drivers. I think there is an advantage in owning a taxi or being in a taxi, especially from my perspective as a father of two daughters. I would prefer my daughters to be in a taxi rather than in a rideshare and I make absolutely no apology for that. I would like to see the cost equalised as much as possible to try to give the ability for taxis to compete on an even footing with Uber.

Mr TELFER: This section, minister, is obviously changing some of the definitions and structures. I am curious on a few different aspects in particular. The definition of a 'booking service' refers to requests made by unspecified 'members of the public' in paragraph (a). For the clarification of the house, does this include bookings that are made by third-party organisations—government agencies, businesses, schools, medical practices, etc.—on behalf of, because it is an unspecified, undefined aspect there where it says 'members of the public'?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A GP who is calling a taxi or arranging a taxi does not need to be accredited as a CBS, no. A CBS is a central booking service. If a third party advertises that they can dispatch taxi work, they will need to be accredited as a CBS. You calling a taxi for your constituent in your office: no, you would not need to be accredited to be a CBS, but you could call a CBS and they would need to be accredited.

Mr Telfer: Or a hotel or a—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, a hotel would call a CBS, so no, the hotel is not a CBS—unless the third party decides that it wants to have people call it unsolicited; then they would need to register as a CBS. But as is the case now, if a concierge calls a taxi for you they do not need to be accredited as a CBS.

Mr TELFER: I am curious, minister, about the reading of the definitions. For clarification, it seems in these definitions necessary for a taxi to be a paid member of a booking service. Is it necessary for a taxi to be a paid member of a booking service if they only want to operate via rank and hail and do not wish to accept bookings from any service?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If you want to drive a taxi you must be a member of a CBS, yes.

Mr TELFER: Despite whether or not you use that?

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): I am going to take that as a supplementary. This will be your third question now, member for Flinders.

Mr TELFER: Thank you, Acting Chair. The definition of point-to-point services includes pick-up and destinations 'determined by the passenger', which could involve third-party bookings. Does this definition also apply to other passenger transport services such as some of the ones we were talking about earlier: wedding cars, tours, motorcycles, classic or vintage cars, stretch limousines, four-wheel drives? Also, are buses with 13 or more seats included in this definition? Obviously, this could have potential implications for multiple hire arrangements—for some of the arrangements that you see, multiple stops and the flexibility that is within some of those existing services.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The act currently does; that is why we have the ability to exempt them, to facilitate exactly what you are talking about.

Mr BASHAM: My question is in relation to centralised booking services and the question that has been raised by Vicki Welsh from Orcas Taxis. Currently, they operate their own booking service with a call centre. They are using the 13cabs number going into their business. They have access to that number for people who place a call south of Willunga Hill.

Going forward, how do you envisage that being operated when that 13cabs number is now going to be operated by city cabs that may wish to operate in the Victor Harbor area at times and we have the Victor Harbor taxi service operating on the 13cabs number in their area? How do we actually see that operating going forward?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: As I suspected, this is a wicked problem. I think it will not be an issue because the idea of the 13cabs central booking service wanting to operate in Victor Harbor in competition with Ms Welsh is unlikely. But let us say, hypothetically, you are right, and they send 20 taxis to operate there full time: who owns the number? It is a national number. It is a very difficult, wicked problem.

I think we can sort this out commercially. I do not see it as being a problem. I think it is one of those hypothetical problems that could emerge but probably will not. The Telstra boundary will remain in place. The bigger issue is not for Ms Welsh: it is for 13cabs if they wish to do that, because if they move down there, if someone in Victor Harbor wants to catch one of these metropolitan-based taxis that is operating now in Victor Harbor, they will go through to Ms Welsh first because that metropolitan boundary will remain in place.

So rather than it being a problem for the smaller country operator, it is probably a problem for the larger metropolitan operator because they will be deferred through to the CBS that Ms Welsh operates. Do you see my point? So I do not think it is an issue. I am sure there will be some commercial arrangement that they will all come to amongst themselves.

Mr BASHAM: I have another question in relation to country cabs versus city cabs. Currently, there is a different fee structure. Country cabs are receiving a higher fee, tariff fees, than city cabs. How is that envisaged if a city cab decides to operate in a regional area for a peak period? For example, they go down for the summer period and try to operate down there. What fee structures are going to be in place when we are seeing changes with the boundaries?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: They are separate regulations, so we can work that out. To the same point, if I took your argument to its extreme, a regional operator could come to the city, get as many taxis as they like with that fee structure, then move them to regional areas. We will sort this out through regulations. I do not envisage it as being a problem. Probably yours is unique given your proximity to the CBD, but the idea that a CBS will attempt to move down to Victor Harbor to take on 12 taxis I think is a bit far-fetched.

These are hypothetical situations that you can catastrophise in your business models. In reality, I do not think they will occur, and if they are occurring, the outcome is there are more services and you will have cheaper fares for your constituents. I get a lot of complaints from your constituents and people who visit your community who say that on a weekend, while being out in beautiful Victor Harbor or enjoying fantastic South Australian wines in McLaren Vale, they are finding it hard to get back to their Airbnb because they cannot get a rideshare or a taxi.

The other outcome here, of course, is that your restaurants and nightlife will improve. The town will become safer because people are not drink driving. There is an outlet for people to get home more safely. These are things we can sort out, but in any legislative reform, in any reform process, we can catastrophise each and every clause to an extent that may never occur. I do not see a situation where you will see 13cabs in Adelaide attempting to go down to compete in Victor Harbor. I just do not see it occurring.

What will occur is you will have rideshare. You will have people in Victor Harbor who will download the app, become accredited and drive rideshare in Victor Harbor, and they will swell on nights when it is busy. There will be more of them, and that will take work away from taxis. That is not necessarily a bad thing for your constituents. At the same time, Ms Welsh and her company can expand the number of taxis that she wants at any time. She may say it is a cost; that is true, but if the work is there and Uber or another rideshare company can justify being there, there must be latent work that is not being served.

Mr BASHAM: I guess there is also a question about a concern of the larger company deciding that the Victor Harbor market is lucrative and acting in a predatory way and going down there and trying to seize that area by stealth through literally targeting particular times of the year and putting the local business under enormous pressure when they are doing the day-to-day work the rest of the year. Is the government conscious of that as a potential possibility, and do they have any thoughts about how they might manage that going forward?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If they were going to do it they would have got country accreditation by now, and they have not. Will that happen in the future? Maybe, but I like the idea of country taxis being able to charge a little bit more, because they are there all year round and they service the community. I also think it is important that we can meet all of that demand, because the consequences of not meeting that demand are (1) people do not go out and enjoy themselves in local restaurants and bars in Victor Harbor or (2) they do and then they drive home. So I think there is a mix here. I am not concerned that this will become a reality, because it could have happened now, and it has not.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 9 passed.

Clause 10.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I will just raise some concerns that were raised with the opposition by the Taxi Council. The bill consolidates accreditation responsibilities in ways that remove explicit operator accreditation. The Taxi Council worries that this may create uncertainty about who bears certain obligations. Can the minister advise how does the bill ensure that, with no separate operator accreditation, responsibilities once borne by operators will not simply fall unfairly on individuals? What process will ensure large booking service providers remain accountable if they manage many drivers across multiple platforms?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: This is a streamlining of services so we do not have people needing duplicate accreditations to do the same thing. The vehicle accreditation has been moved into the person who owns and operates the vehicle, and the booking service is doing its accreditation, so I am not sure that the concerns are founded, but I am happy to meet with the Taxi Council as I often do and discuss this with them.

I am not sure that their concerns are valid in terms of what we are attempting to achieve because, in the end, accreditation will still be required, so I am not quite sure about the point that the opposition is making in terms of the final responsibility that you are talking about. I am a bit confused about what it is you mean and the question you asked, but I can check with the council between the houses if you prefer.

Mr TELFER: Obviously this aspect here also talks about some of the definitions and clarifications of this process going through. Regarding this aspect in section 27, I would be curious as to what process will ensure that large booking service providers remain accountable if one service provider manages many drivers across multiple different platforms. What measures are in place to make sure that there is accountability for that service provider if they manage drivers across different platforms?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Are you talking about a booking service operating a rideshare and taxi simultaneously?

Mr TELFER: Yes, if there is an overarching that can then utilise multiple different platforms potentially, whether it is taxi and rideshare or whether it is multiple rideshare, for instance.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is separate accreditation for booking services, so if you are a rideshare, there is an accreditation; if you are a taxi booking service, there is an accreditation. It is not one accreditation for both.

Mr TELFER: If there are multiple rideshares.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Multiple rideshare?

Mr TELFER: Yes, if you potentially, theoretically, have a service provider that is providing that service and utilising two different brands—two different rideshare operators.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You would get accreditation for each.

Mr TELFER: In clause 10 section 29(2)(ii) there does not seem to be a differentiation between the driver and the owner/driver. It states:

(ii) that the accredited person is considered to have sufficient responsibility, skills and aptitude to drive the vehicle or vehicles to which the accreditation relates—

How will that requirement, as put there, be assessed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You must hold an accredited driver's licence. That is always a good start. There is a fit and proper person test. There will be a series of tests prescribed with regulation, I imagine. Again, we are regulating for safety here, so I am assuming a police clearance, a working with children clearance—all the normal procedures that you would expect anyone dealing with a member of the public to have in place and that will be required before you become accredited.

In terms of the owner-driver part that you talked about earlier, there will not be owner-drivers of taxis because the licences will be held by the government and just issued to people. People who own the vehicle is a separate issue, but the accreditation to drive will include a driver's licence and all the appropriate checks and balances that we will have to have in place to allow someone to move members of the public around.

Mr TELFER: Further to that, and I appreciate that clarification, there seems to be a bit of uncertainty around the duties of a driver under their accreditation. On page 9, 29C states, 'which applies in respect of the passenger transport service provided'. Where are those different services listed? It is putting out a definition there seemingly without a specified definition. Is this something that will be addressed in the regulations?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The regulations and a gazettal notice.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): Were you after another question, member for Flinders, or are you going to hold your fire?

Mr TELFER: I think I will hold my fire.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is the imposition of various conditions, and ridesharing has raised concerns that it grants the minister broad and unchecked power to mandate the use of unspecified technological systems for booking service providers, potentially imposing untenable conditions and point-to-point transport operators. That is in the view of rideshare. Given a lack of clarity in clause 12, will the minister commit to specifying up-front what technological systems will be required, rather than leaving this open-ended and, if he is not able to do that, can he explain why?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is just an interface between our system and the booking services system, to know that they are dispatching work to an accredited driver with an accredited vehicle. It is our way of checking to make sure that when rideshare gives you a job that you are an accredited Uber driver with the appropriate checks and balances in place, driving a vehicle that is accredited.

We have not finalised the technology transfer about how that will be done. This is something we would ask—I am assuming we are going to ask the people to verify with us to make sure that that interface works. It is just a protection to make sure that all of a sudden a rideshare company does not just dispatch work to people who are driving vehicles that have not been tested or drivers who are not accredited. That is all it is.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I think the minister has covered the supplementary questions I may have had on that matter. I guess the question that comes to mind is whether that is the only purpose for which that technology will be used.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, for us it is a safety mechanism. We want to make sure that when a rideshare dispatches work to someone through their app, that is going to someone who is an accredited driver in an accredited vehicle. How they do it: they have to show to us and we will have to be satisfied that the interface works appropriately. We are not going to prescribe to them which software they will use; we just want them to be able to assure us, through a rigorous process, that they are dispatching work to people who are accredited in an accredited vehicle.

Again, I do not want to be too prescriptive here, because I do not want to take away the entrepreneurship of the CBS and booking services in being able to use what they think is the best interface. The government is not best placed to do that, but I am in the hands of the agency here as well, because figure the counterfactual here: you get up one day and ask me the question, 'How is it that John from 17 Robert Street, Unley got picked up by someone after they called a booking service in a car that was 25 years old, driven by an unlicensed driver?' That is the counterfactual, and we are trying to make sure we have checks and balances in place.

Clause passed.