HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PASSENGER TRANSPORT ACT

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:30): I move:

That the general regulations under the Passenger Transport Act 1994, made on 22 January 2009 and laid on the table of this council on 3 February 2009, be disallowed.

These regulations deal with taxi services. In particular, they have a serious effect upon non-metropolitan country taxi services, and they raise a number of serious issues.

We hear a lot of rhetoric from the Rann Labor government about its commitment to small business and regional development in this state; about how it listens to and consults with the community and that it acts in response to what it hears and on what it consults.

However, these regulations, insofar as they affect country taxis, give the lie to all four commitments. These regulations will have the effect of destroying small business and will have disastrous effects on certain small businesses currently operating. They will not improve services or businesses in rural South Australia. They are not the result of the government's listening or consulting. Consultations have been going on for a long time, but the ultimate result is that these regulations will have very serious unintended consequences.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire has moved for the establishment of a select committee into the taxi industry. We will be supporting that, and we certainly hope that the government supports it. I believe that the select committee will be an appropriate forum to examine not only the issues raised by these regulations but a number of other important issues in relation to taxis.

Perhaps I should begin my presentation to the council on this matter by putting on the record a letter from Lake City Taxis which has been sent to all parliamentarians and the government. I thank that business for putting this material out, and I think it deserves to be placed on the record.

Lake City Taxis is a taxi business operating in Mount Gambier. I think Mount Gambier is the only city in South Australia whose council has passed a by-law which is currently operating in relation to the country taxi service in that city. I think Victor Harbor at one stage had a similar regime and Murray Bridge had a regime in place which I do not believe was effectively operating, certainly not in recent times.

The capacity exists in the Passenger Transport Act for local government to have by-laws relating to taxi services. As I said, Lake City Taxis is the major taxi operator under those by-laws in Mount Gambier and environs. Its letter to parliamentarians refers to the regulations and states:

We have detailed Government actions we consider urgent, essential and necessary to prevent a total collapse of the excellent local taxi service we have provided to the community of Mt Gambier over many years, and the business investments which we have built up and rely on for our livelihood.

We are greatly disappointed that changes with such serious impact on our small businesses operations have not been given prior exposure as a draft for industry comment and the seeking of professional advice.

The outcomes we now seek from members of Parliament and the Government can best be summarised as follows:

A disallowance of the amendments to the current Regulations in their present form;

Failing that, compensation commensurate with lost business income and capital investment value; or

The issuance of General Taxi Licenses for each operator under council by-law.

The letter continues:

The City of Mount Gambier is the sole remaining regional Council to retain taxi by-laws and to issue taxi licenses with restricted numbers—just as the State Government does for Adelaide Metro taxis. This practice was established by the City many years ago and has been in continuous operation ever since. Operators, new and old, have come to rely on that legal policy framework for security, investment and business confidence.

The amended Regulations have created a new country taxi category which is totally deregulated, un-licensed and with no restrictions on the number of country taxi services able to be approved. This covers all non-Metro regions.

Consequently—and this is a key and crucial point—regional councils are no longer able to restrict license numbers within a taxi by-law and subordinate policy framework. This arises because Councils must avoid regulating a matter so as to contradict an express policy of the State that provides for the deregulation of the matter (see Local Government Act 1999 s247(e)).

The letter continues:

Thus the Mount Gambier City Council would need to amend their taxi by-law and restrictive numbers licensing policies to comply with the recently amended state [government] regulations in this matter. The law requires them to do this now following the effective date of 28 February 2009 of the new regulations.

Clearly this policy response would have major negative financial impacts on local taxi operators who have invested considerable capital in their council issued taxi licenses and the goodwill of their businesses.

The local taxi operators and council have expressed a strong will to retain current council taxi by-laws with its restricted numbers of licenses and they see that as the best way to manage and control the local taxi service.

However, if that is no longer a policy option the government wishes to keep open, then they seek compensation for lost income and invested capital.

As a further alternative the operators have stated that they each be granted a general taxi license which would retain their licensed status with restricted numbers.

The Adelaide Metropolitan taxis have been covered by this restricted and controlled taxi licensing system for years, and, as the Minister for Transport is able to issue 50 new general licenses per year, such an alternative may offer a suitable policy response in this instance.

Whether or not one agrees with the particular points being made in relation to this issue and, in particular, the effect of section 247(e) of the Local Government Act, it is not for us here to decide. Nor are other policy options that are advanced by Lake City Taxis matters to be considered in this particular resolution because, as the council knows, our only option is to disallow regulations of this kind. It is not possible to introduce amendments in either house of parliament. That is the sole prerogative of executive government. Therefore, if some of the other policy responses suggested are to be adopted, that cannot arise as a result of the motion currently before the chamber.

I am placing some historical matters on the record today, and I will be seeking leave to conclude my remarks. It is worth putting on the record that discussions and consultation about how country taxi services are to be regulated have been ongoing for quite some time. For example, I refer to a paper issued in March 2007 by the Local Government Association where reference is made to a country taxis working group which, at that stage, had proposed six options for the licensing of country taxis. The report of the LGA contains a useful summary of some of the background, as follows:

The state government has not previously regulated the number of taxi licenses available in non-metropolitan South Australia. At present only two councils license taxis outside metropolitan Adelaide.

I interpose here that it was two at that stage, but it is obviously only one now. The LGA paper continues:

As a result approximately 30 operators currently operate about 150 vehicles to provide a taxi service in non-metropolitan South Australia in areas where councils have not or no longer license taxis. This presents a difficulty for the country taxi operators, who wish to be recognised as taxis.

The preferred position of operators is they would like the state government to license country taxis that are not covered by council by-laws and that this include restrictions on the number of licenses issued. Country taxi operators have previously raised this situation with the government of South Australia through the Premier's Taxi Council.

In November 2005 the LGA AGM called on the state government to review all state legislation relating to the operation, licensing and accreditation for non metropolitan taxis.

The meeting also requested that the state government develop legislation that would enable non metropolitan councils (as an option) to 'opt into' the management of local taxi operations. Where any council decided against 'opting in' to the total management of non metropolitan taxi operations then control responsibility should rest with the Office of Passenger Transport (or its authorised officers).

This issue was referred to the Minister's Local Government Forum (MLGF). A Country Taxis Working Group was formed under the auspices of the MLGF. The membership of the Country Taxis Working Group was the Local Government Association, the Office of Local Government, and the Public Transport Division of the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

The function of the working group was to provide a forum for discussion; to review existing legislation; and to consider whether an appropriate regime is for councils to 'opt into' the licensing of country taxis, with the state government taking responsibility for the licensing of those taxis not licensed by local councils. The working group was also to develop a paper to explore and identify options and to make recommendations.

The LGA notes that this has been 'a challenging issue'. A recommendation report proposing six options was presented with possible solutions. It is unnecessary at this stage to go through those particular policy options; suffice to say that the Local Government Association paper clearly indicates the number of working groups and the amount of consultation and discussion, etc. that happened in relation to this issue. However, the message we have from Lake City Taxis refers to disastrous consequences for its business and also for country taxis generally as a result of this policy introduced by the government.

It is interesting also to see the sort of misinformation that can easily be derived from announcements of this kind. For example, a very positive article appeared in the Mount Gambier newspaper, The Border Watch, in February. In that article, the council, certainly its Chief Executive, appeared to think that what had been achieved with these new regulations was something wonderful. The article in The Border Watch states:

The rest of the state will follow Mount Gambier's lead to ensure that taxis can provide a sustainable service, according to city council chief executive Greg Muller. Mr Muller welcomed creation of the new licensing category for country taxis under the Local Government Act by the State Government's public transport division. Taxis had previously operated unlicensed in most areas of South Australia, apart from Mount Gambier, where council maintains bylaws to regulate the industry.

Lake City Taxis manager Perri Rasmussen said support from the council had sustained the city's taxi services, which was particularly important in Mount Gambier where other public transport was limited. She said council regulations restricted the number of taxis in the area to 11—nine of which were operated by her business. 'The business can operate viably as a 24-hour service when you don't have the cherry-pickers that only work on Friday and Saturday night instead of all the times when taxis are needed during the week,' she said. Ms Rasmussen said it was disappointing the government had not always licensed taxis across the state, as it did in Adelaide.

Ms Rasmussen is quoted as saying:

The government does not put the same emphasis on regional public transport as it does on metropolitan areas or see the need for a 24-hour service for things like getting people home from the pub so we don't have drink drivers on the road. It surprises me they don't have the same priority on regional areas as metropolitan taxis, which is a shame for rural people. We shouldn't be any different.

The article continues:

Ms Rasmussen said council also had arrangements to allow extra 'gold plate' vehicles on the road at peak times, such as New Year's Eve, to ensure public needs were met while the industry was protected.

Ms Rasmussen is further quoted as saying:

It is good for local people to realise Mount Gambier City Council supports the taxi industry and makes sure we have a 24-hour service available. But in the bigger picture it is disappointing the State Government does not acknowledge it is important to have public transport in regional areas.

This particular item from The Border Watch would suggest to any reader that what was being done was reasonable. It was not strictly being objected to by Lake City Taxis. However, the true devil was in the detail of this, and I think that at that stage Lake City Taxis had not fully appreciated the damage these new regulations would do not only to its business but also to all other regional taxi businesses in South Australia. It is not only to the detriment of their business, which is obviously an important consideration, but it is also to the detriment of local communities who will not have the same dedicated, committed, well capitalised and profitable taxi services you need if you are to provide 24 hours' service and an appropriate service that delivers, not some sort of part-time cherry-picking service.

An interesting message was posted on The Border Watch website in relation to that item by a Mr Chris Brougham. Mr Brougham is a principal of Des's Taxi Service, which operates a large taxi service in Whyalla and which probably has the largest fleet of country taxis. He said:

The new regulations under the Passenger Transport Act create a country taxi accreditation category. They do not license country taxis. Under these regulations new council-licensed taxis operating in Mount Gambier do not have to be accredited. Is this fair? Does the Mount Gambier council require the Mount Gambier taxi operators to provide a national police clearance every five years and to record their public liability details?

He poses that question. I understand, incidentally, that they do, so that is something of a furphy. Mr Brougham goes on to say:

Every other country taxi in the state is going to have to do this. If Whyalla can support 30 taxis with a similar population to Mount Gambier how come Mount Gambier only needs 11 taxis?

That would create the impression that Mr Brougham might have been suggesting that he was in favour of the new regulations and that he was unsympathetic to any special consideration being given to Mount Gambier operators. That is not the case. Mr Brougham is part of a group of country taxi operators who have made representations to the opposition about the effect of these regulations.

I urge all members to consult with those who are interested in this issue, and I urge the government to reconsider its position in relation to these regulations. Too often in this state, and in Australia generally, under the rubric of national competition policy, businesses have been unnecessarily destroyed with no consequent public benefit. The consultation, as some of the material I have read indicates, has not been satisfactory in relation to this issue. Clearly, some people may not have appreciated the effect of the regulations as drawn. I do not believe the government deliberately intends to destroy small business in country areas; it would be a shameful situation if that was its intention, but I do not accuse the government of that. However, the point is that the government's actions will have that effect, and the government should reconsider. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT