PASSENGER TRANSPORT (DISCIPLINARY POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 September 2007. Page 777.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (17:14): The bill proposed by the Hon. Mr Hood is opposed by the government because we believe that the matter is already provided for by regulation. The requirement for a taxi driver to take a passenger with a working animal, which includes a blind person with a guide dog, is already clearly prescribed, with a penalty for non-compliance in regulation 57 of the Passenger Transport (General) Regulations 1994.

The Hon. Mr Hood identified a matter before the Passenger Transport Standards Committee in December 2005, which involved a passenger with a guide dog being requested to sit in the rear seat of the taxi. This matter was dismissed because the committee ruled that the passenger was not refused a ride. Following this unsatisfactory decision, complaints now include reference to the taxi driver code of practice in schedule 9 of the passenger transport general regulations, which recognises the need to be sensitive to the needs of people with disabilities and have regard to laws about discriminating against the person because of disability. This approach prevents the recurrence of a driver escaping sanction because of a technicality.

Most recently, in the matter of the Passenger Transport Standards Committee versus Nariman Fathi (Judicial No.26 of 2007), Master Norman of the District Court upheld a decision of the Passenger Transport Standards Committee against a driver who refused service to a passenger with a guide dog to suspend his accreditation for a period of three years. The fine of $2,750 was waived on the grounds of financial hardship. This outcome reinforces the commitment to prosecute offences of this nature and ensures that penalties impact on the offending driver and act as a deterrent to others drivers, emphasising that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.

The government agrees with the Hon. Dennis Hood that a taxi driver refusing to accept a hire by a person with a guide dog is not acceptable and remains absolutely committed through accreditation, training and enforcement to address this issue. Passengers who are refused service are encouraged to provide details of their experience to the Department of Transport so that appropriate action may be taken. In encouraging feedback from people who have been disadvantaged, it should be noted that since January 2006 the department has received 10 complaints in relation to service allegedly being refused because of the presence of a guide dog. Of these, seven have been referred to the Passenger Transport Standards Committee and one to the Equal Opportunity Commission. In that instance the driver now lives interstate. One has not proceeded because of insufficient evidence and another complainant is still undecided as to whether to provide a statement. These statistics indicate that complaints are taken seriously and pursued through the disciplinary process.

The four accredited taxi companies in Adelaide, being Adelaide Independent, Suburban, Yellow and Adelaide Access Taxis, are committed to ensuring that guide dogs are able to access taxis. Recent efforts to address this issue have included information to taxi drivers and owners, signage for taxis indicating they are guide dog friendly and information sent through dispatch screens in the taxis. These companies receive the bookings and refer them to the taxis for action. Once a booking has been dispatched and accepted by a driver they expect it will be completed. If they receive a complaint that a booking has not be completed, they will usually try to address the customer's needs by sending another taxi and reporting the offending driver to the Department of Transport for disciplinary action.

The proposed amendment to section 36 of the act deals with disciplinary powers. Section 36(2)(a) already provides grounds for disciplinary action if the respondent is found guilty of an offence against this or any other act or law. In addition, the code of practice in the regulations makes it a requirement to have regard to laws relating to discrimination. On this basis the proposed amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Hood is considered to be unnecessary. In addition, the Equal Opportunity Commission and Equal Opportunity Tribunal continue to be able to address any matters related to discrimination on the basis of refusing to carry a guide dog. While I understand the motivation of the Hon. Mr Hood and the noble sentiments behind his bill, the government believes the matter is already covered by regulation to ensure that taxi drivers are not able to refuse passengers with a guide dog or other working animal on which they depend.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (17:19): This bill is aimed at making it a bit tougher for taxi drivers to refuse to take on board a passenger who has a guide dog with them. The Hon. Mr Finnigan has said that the legislation is unnecessary because the regulations already provide for that, and in fact the Equal Opportunity Act provides that blind or deaf persons are not to be separated from their guide dogs, yet clearly there is a need for it because taxi drivers have a way of getting around it.

It has been reported by people with guide dogs that, as they have approached a taxi rank, the taxis are lined up and, as they get closer with their dog, the driver suddenly turns on the motor and drives off, ostensibly because they have another call to deal with, but it happens too often for it to be coincidence. Sometimes people with these dogs will book a taxi, not say they have a dog and, while they are standing out the front, the taxi approaches, slows down, sees that they have a dog, speeds up and do not ever drop in to pick up the call. Some people with guide dogs have had the experience of making a call, being honest and upfront and saying they have a guide dog and then finding they have to wait hours for a taxi to come and pick them up.

Some people at a taxi rank have had a driver refuse to let them in with a dog on the basis that they have an allergy or that it is against their religious beliefs. Others do a form of industrial action by refusing to cooperate with the passenger, not helping them into the cab. If they have a sight problem and have the dog, a harness and something they are carrying they may need assistance, but the drivers stand by and let them struggle. Often there is the problem that people with a sight impairment believe they may have been overcharged, but they cannot see the meter. It is obvious that with an ageing population we will have an increasing number of sight-impaired people in our population and more will be using a guide dog to assist them as they move around.

I took up the issue seven years ago, arguing for taxi vouchers for sight-impaired people. My former colleague, the Hon. Ian Gilfillan, also took up the issue and raised a particular instance back in 2005 that bears repeating. I will not go into all the details, but a friend of his had called a taxi. When the taxi pulled up, the driver said to him, 'In the boot'. He thought he meant that he ought to put his bag in the boot. He proceeded to get into the car with the dog next to him and the driver said again, 'In the boot'. He thought that he was offering to put the harness in the boot. He said, 'No, I want the harness here with me.' On the third occasion when the driver said, 'In the boot', with some signalling from the driver, he understood that the driver was telling him he wanted his seeing-eye dog put in the boot. He refused and the driver refused to take him further. The man got out of the taxi and sought the driver's details. He intended to report him but, unfortunately, he had a heart condition. He had what is called an atrial fibrillation event and he ended up going to hospital, so he was not in a position to report what had happened.

I think there has been an under-reporting of this issue for quite some time for people in this situation. It just becomes too difficult so they give up. It is clear to me, despite what the Hon. Mr Finnigan has said, that there are problems. It might not be legal to refuse to pick up someone but, nevertheless, it is happening. I am not sure that this legislation in itself will necessarily resolve the situation, but it will toughen it up a little more. It is preferable to the current situation, if we have it that little tighter. It is a pity that the government of its own volition has not done something in a concrete manner to improve this situation. If there had been action from the government, I do not think there would be a need for this bill in the first instance.

As far as this bill is concerned—and I do not believe the bill allows for it—I think there needs to be something for dogs in training. The trainers have to take the dogs into all the situations in which the eventual owners are likely to be. With that one reservation, I indicate Democrats support for the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:25): Obviously, the government has chosen not to support the bill so I will not waste too much of members' time, but I want to make a few comments. This bill is a little personal for me because my mother is blind—and some members in the chamber are probably aware of that. Through various stages in her life she has used canes and dogs. It is very tough for people who are vision impaired to operate in our society. They rely on taxis. They cannot drive, which is something sighted people take for granted. I cannot imagine what it would be like not to have a car yet my mother has never driven a car in her entire life; and anyone who is blind would be in the same situation.

This bill was a genuine attempt to right a significant wrong that occurs fairly frequently. My mother is blind, and works at the Royal Society for the Blind at Gilles Plains in a sheltered workshop environment. I have met many of her friends, who are vision impaired to varying degrees, many of them quite severely and many of them absolutely blind. They rely on taxis almost every single day of their life. Every single one to whom I spoke—and there would be dozens of them—had a story of being refused access to a taxi on several occasions. It is a genuine problem that exists.

Clearly, from that sample we are talking about perhaps over 100 instances of blind people being refused access to taxis in the past couple of years, so it is a significant problem. I have a letter from a taxi company in response to a complaint that was made. I will not name the company; it is probably not fair. The letter is in response to a complaint that was made, although the bill, if passed, would solve the problem. The letter states:

Unfortunately, we instruct our drivers as said (that is, pick up people with guide dogs) but, ultimately, the drivers themselves are responsible for their actions whilst on the road alone. All drivers are in fact self-employed subcontracted individuals and, as such, are not supervised while they perform their daily duties.

That is exactly what this bill would have fixed. This bill would have put the onus squarely at the feet of the taxi companies so that those companies would be responsible for a driver refusing to pick up someone with a guide dog. Therefore, the taxi companies would cop the fine—and that was the intention of the bill. It would certainly make them more vigilant to ensure that their drivers did not refuse access to taxis for people with a guide dog. That being the case, it was a genuine attempt to right that situation.

I have received a number of letters detailing similar situations. I met with the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity, Linda Matthews, who expressed strong support for the bill. In fact, the bill was drafted with the assistance of the Royal Society for the Blind. There has been significant consultation with the sectors that would be affected by this bill, including the taxi companies themselves. It is with some disappointment that I note it will not be supported by the government through this council. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.