HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SELECT COMMITTEE ON TAXI INDUSTRY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (20:33): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

First and foremost I would like to thank my colleagues, who put in quite an amount of time listening to and reading evidence, and working on the report of the committee. I would also like to place on the public record my appreciation to the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. Bernie Finnigan, the Hon. John Gazzola and the Hon. Rob Lawson. I would also like to place on the public record my appreciation of the secretary Mr Anthony Beasley and the research officer Ms Geraldine Sladden.

Given the time, and because we will be here dealing with a lot of business tonight, I will be brief, because other members want to speak. Frankly, it is all in the report. I just want to say a few things. First of all, I note the democratic right of some members to move their own notification with respect to how they see issues around the committee. I respect that, but I want to say that the goal of the committee was hopefully to come up with some recommendations to improve the taxi industry.

It is interesting that, even in the past few days, when talking to different constituents who asked what we are doing this week, I said that we would be bringing up a report on the taxi industry. They said that that was good, because they did not know of anybody who did not want to see some sort of improvement in the industry. So, it was not a vendetta against certain individuals or organisations. That was never the intent.

One of the things that did come before me personally, which I spoke about before, is that there were so-called allegations of inappropriate conduct with respect to some potential fraud issues, etc. None of that is in the report; in fact, it is fair to say that there was no absolute firm evidence recorded. There was evidence put before the committee which was not published. It is not easy, frankly, to expect a committee to come up with anything in that regard, but there needs to be an opportunity for people who are concerned, if they are allegedly being charged a Heysen tunnel tax, an airport tax or a festivals tax, to go to someone who can sort out those issues.

Whilst I respect the fact that the Taxi Council of South Australia by and large, I believe, does a good job, I feel that often the Department of Transport seems to regard the taxi council as the be all and end all for issues dealing with the taxi industry but, really, it is the Department of Transport that has the regulatory and overarching responsibility. That is why one of the key recommendations in the report is to provide a dedicated unit without having to bring in additional resources; the simple restructuring of resources within the department will provide stronger oversight of and support for the taxi industry.

If people do have complaints at the moment, whether they are drivers or passengers—those two in particular I raise here because, frankly, it is pretty difficult for them to get any action—who is responsible for that? Where do those people go—unless, of course it is a very serious situation, like we have seen at times, unfortunately, when there is some sort of assault on either a driver or passenger.

With respect to the Premier's Taxi Council, the majority of the committee believed that it was best that it be renamed to reflect what we saw as its real composition and function, that is, of an advisory body. At the moment there are mixed messages out there when it comes to who is the council, who is the advisory body and who actually represents the association. Also, the report recommends that the Taxi Council of South Australia considers removing the word 'council' from its name to better reflect its role as an industry association.

One of the issues that came up in evidence was the fact that some of the drivers feel that they do not fit as appropriately as they should in either the advisory body within the Premier's Taxi Council or the Taxi Council of South Australia, which they feel has more of a key representative role when it comes to licensed owners and people leasing plates, and also when it comes to issues involving the central booking services.

That brings in the next point. The majority of the committee recommends in this report that, as a matter of urgency, the Minister for Transport introduce measures to improve transparency in trading taxi licence plates and incentives involving the transfer of taxi licences. I refer to the situation where someone has bought a taxi, they are doing the right thing, they are working hard for not a lot of money, and at the end of that 12-month period, as an example, they are hijacked by someone allegedly bringing cash forward to up the ante on the leasing of that particular licence and effectively putting the other bona fide hardworking driver out of business.

The majority believes that if there were some transparency, some form of registration structure, something like a Bendigo exchange, then it would put more clarity and transparency into that issue as a whole whereas at the moment it is very hard to identify who buys and owns what, what they really pay for them, etc.

With respect to the independent evaluation of driver training, we acknowledge that there have been a number of improvements to the industry during the short period of time that the select committee has been working, and we acknowledge that there have been improvements which are highlighted at the back of the report.

Notwithstanding that, the majority of the committee still felt that an independent evaluation of the driver training course should be undertaken to assess its effectiveness and propose any changes necessary because, whether it is the Transport Workers Union, the president of the Taxi Drivers Association or indeed—whilst they have actually worked hard to improve this and I acknowledge it—the Taxi Council of South Australia, many believe that there should still be more focus on driver training and ongoing support in those early weeks and months as a driver.

That brings me to another point. Whilst, during the period of this select committee, the state government here did move for people to have an Australian driving licence for six months before they can get a taxi licence (and I am happy about that personally), we are still concerned because some states already have 12 months in place and I understand that some are moving to 12 months. We request that the minister, at an appropriate time after the election, evaluate how the six months is going and whether that should be made 12.

Obviously there are issues: a well-known one is the safety of drivers and passengers. We did have some representation and submissions from people who indicated that there are new technological advances when it comes to improving passenger and driver safety. We are asking the Minister for Transport to proactively promote and encourage the introduction of the latest technology.

Some of this technology actually tracks a taxi from the time that it picks up a passenger through every street right through to where it drops a passenger off so there is absolute opportunity to protect both the driver and the passenger. SAPOL requested that CCTV footage in taxis should be retained for a minimum of 60 hours. SAPOL had some concerns about the fact that it felt that this footage was being retained for too short a time if it needed it for any evidence or investigation, so the committee recommends that CCTV footage be retained for a minimum of 60 hours.

One of the other points that was of concern is not of the minister's doing. I understand that the department did this, and I believe this is almost like a form of blackmail on the part of the department. As members would know, there have been a lot of issues about country taxis and whether country taxis should be licensed. We had evidence given to us that, because some taxi companies and/or drivers had said no to certain issues regarding the regulations that the department was bringing forward, their South Australian transport subsidy scheme vouchers were withheld. I think from memory it was either $6,000 or $8,000 in one case that this company had not been paid.

That is not satisfactory. A department should not be holding anybody to that sort of ransom. It has a duty to pay within the prescribed time, so we are asking the minister to instruct DTEI to pay the South Australian transport subsidy scheme vouchers promptly in future.

With respect to country taxis, which was one of the more significant issues in the time that we had to take evidence, there clearly has been a real problem for some time. The only example where it appears to work reasonably well is down in Mount Gambier and, of course, the council still has a regulatory role down there. That one seemed to work well, but, apart from that, most of the evidence that we had from country taxi representation was that they wanted a licensing regime similar to the licensing regime for metropolitan taxis.

One of the other recommendations was that, rather than regulation, within a region country taxis are licensed. I will not spend much longer talking on this now; it is all written and documented here. I highlight the fact that it is hard enough as it is getting transport of any form in the country; in fact, a lot of country areas miss out on basic transport, and that puts other difficulties before people. For example, if you are in the country and you want to go to a function and have a few drinks, you have no choice but to make sure that someone is the captain to drive people home, because there is no taxi service.

If we had this structured and licensed properly within regions it would encourage those who already have taxis—a significant investment in infrastructure and vehicles—to have some guaranteed continuity of income. There would also be an opportunity at some point to build a bit of goodwill into that, which is not unreasonable in any business, but also, importantly, it would then give more assurance to those people in that region that they could access a taxi. We see that as another very important initiative, and we are calling on the minister to come up with a full taxi licensing regime within regions for country taxis throughout South Australia.

Obviously, we had to bring this report down now, because this is our last chance before the election. There were a number of other people who we would have liked to have interviewed. I put on the public record that some of us were particularly interested in getting input from people with disabilities with respect to how they are faring with taxi industry support, but time did not permit. Hopefully, in the new parliament, if there is to be a further consideration and development of improving our taxis, there will be an opportunity to broaden this inquiry.

I finish by saying that one thing that did concern many of us is that, whilst the capital increases, year in year out, have been magnificent for those people who have invested in taxi plates, in fact, even with the significant capital gain over the past 10 years in real estate in South Australia, the fact remains that you would have been better off to have bought taxi plates, because they have increased even more significantly than those huge increases that we have seen in real estate values. Unfortunately, at the other end of that, and partly as a result of that, drivers are working longer hours for less. In fact, we had, I believe, quite a lot of substantial evidence confirming that many drivers are working 60 hours a week for about $480 to $500 a week, which is not a very good pay structure at all.

It is something that, obviously, we do not expect the government or the parliament to address, but somewhere in the industry it has to be addressed. We have seen recently where taxi drivers, when they were working for either a person who had leased a plate or who was the owner of a plate, were actually sharing the revenue from each fare 50-50. That has been reduced now, in a lot of cases, to where the owner or the lessee takes 60 per cent and the driver has been reduced to 40 per cent. You are not going to sustain an industry that way; you will get a lot of turnover and a lot of dissatisfaction and frustration from those drivers. There is, of course, the occupational, health and safety issues when you are driving for 60 hours a week for both the driver and, of course, the passengers.

With that, I know the government was not happy about this committee, but I believe that it was important to give the community an opportunity to have input. From what I can see in the report, I do not believe that there is anything that is having a whack at the government. I believe that there are some good and sound recommendations there, and I think we have to remember this: first and foremost, when we inject a lot of money in every way to enhance our tourism opportunities in this state, the first real feel of the state that people get is when they leave the airport and get in a taxi. If they have a bad experience with that then that can cause negative attitudes to a lot of other experiences within this state.

It is a very important industry, and it needs to be supported from the peak, which is the Department of Transport, and that is why, fundamentally, whilst I personally would have liked to have seen a commissioner for the taxi industry, the absolute majority of the committee did not think that we should go that far, but they did believe that we should have a dedicated unit. I hope to see further improvement with the industry, and I believe this effort by the committee has been of benefit to the industry, and I thank my colleagues for their contribution.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (20:50): I rise to support the comments of the chair of the committee and commend the report and its recommendations to the council. I certainly will not go through all the recommendations in detail, but I wish to highlight about six of them briefly. I strongly support the recommendation that a separate dedicated unit be established in DTEI to provide stronger oversight of and support for the taxi industry. Certainly at the moment it comes under the safety and regulation division of DTEI, and most of us on the committee would recognise that the focus on the taxi industry could have been a lot stronger, which is why the majority of members of the committee have come down with that recommendation.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire alluded to the next two recommendations, which try to fix up some of the confusion. If anybody does not have a lot to do with the taxi industry and gets involved in an inquiry into it, when you get the Premier's Taxi Council and the Taxi Council of South Australia, there is significant confusion. The Premier's Taxi Council no longer has the Premier as a member, and it certainly has not met a great deal in recent times. We moved that it be renamed to more truly reflect its composition and function as an advisory body. We also urge the Minister for Transport to encourage the Taxi Council of South Australia (TCSA) to replace the word 'council' and go back to something that better reflects its role as an industry association.

I refer particularly to the recommendation made by the majority of the committee in relation to country taxis, namely, that all country taxis be licensed for a specific region with appropriate transitional arrangements to be put in place to give due recognition to existing operators. This would reflect the situation in all other states of the commonwealth. Most members of this place would be aware that in the past taxis in country cities and larger centres have been regulated by council by-laws. In all bar one case, councils have decided that they do not want to be involved, and only the City of Mount Gambier currently has by-laws for taxis.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I reiterate that only the City of Mount Gambier has by-laws for taxis, and the Hon. Mr Lucas should know that, coming from the Blue Lake city. We have recommended that all country taxis be licensed. The committee did not want to go quite this far but, as a personal recommendation, I believe that it would be appropriate to make use of the new common regional boundaries this government has brought in, as that would be sensible.

Recommendation No.12 is that an independent investigation into hire cars working as de facto taxis in peri-urban areas be undertaken in order to clarify their operating environment. I strongly believe in that recommendation, coming from the town of Gawler, which is bigger than some of the country cities in this state but which some people still like to call a town. It has what everybody calls taxis, but they are not taxis but hire cars. We have similar circumstances in the Adelaide Hills, and it is a strong recommendation that the government have an independent investigation into the operation of hire cars in those scenarios.

The other recommendation with which I have a particular affinity is that clear regulations for multi-seat fares be introduced as soon as possible. We had evidence from the department that, of course, if independent travellers all share a taxi, then the taxi driver can charge 75 per cent of the fare to each of those people, which is not a bad lurk if you are a taxi driver. I think we have all known that that has existed for some time. However, it has been my own experience that, on very busy occasions at the airport, when many different aeroplanes arrive at once and there is a big queue of people wanting to travel in taxis, the concierge will bring forward a minibus and say, 'Anyone wanting to go to the CBD, all pile into this bus and it will be $15 per head.' The department said that is not really legal. It makes sense if it can shift people more quickly out of a queue, if you are going into the city rather than disparate parts of the suburbs or elsewhere, but it really needs to be cleared up.

In conclusion, I note appendix 3 of the report which covers a number of recent developments in the industry that have taken place during the life of the committee, and while we would not claim to have an impact on all of them, the fact that a number of them have taken place during the life of the committee is no coincidence. I extend my thanks to the secretary of the committee, Mr Anthony Beasley, and our research officer, Geraldine Sladden, and I thank my colleagues the Hons Messrs Brokenshire, Darley, Finnigan, Gazzola and Lawson.

In my final comment in commending the report, I must say that I felt sorry for the staff of this committee having to deal with three Johns, two Roberts and a Bernie, who we suspected must have Robert or John as a second name!

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (20:57): I rise briefly and will not repeat comments made by other members. However, I do deplore the statements made by Labor members, the Hons John Gazzola and Bernie Finnigan, in their dissenting statement. The dismissive and disrespectful language of that statement does no credit to those members. They say the committee was established for a political purpose. The purpose it was established for was to investigate and report upon improvements that should be made to the taxi industry. It is clear from the evidence received and also from the evidence members will be familiar with on a day-to-day basis that there is a need for improvement in the taxi industry in South Australia.

We have the situation that the cost of a taxi plate has now risen to some $320,000. People are paying excessive amounts to lease taxis. The income of taxi drivers is barely above the breadline, and those so-called friends of the workers opposite who say there is nothing wrong with the taxi industry have buried their head in the sand. The most deplorable example of government arrogance that was revealed in the evidence in this select committee concerned country taxis. For a long time, the government has been endeavouring to force the Country Taxi Association country operators to abandon their claim for taxi licences, that is, the sort of licence that is enjoyed by metropolitan operators.

The government has been seeking to force them to accept a form of authorisation—something less than a licence—and the country taxi operators were strongly resisting that. Taxi income, to quite some considerable extent, relies upon payments made by the government under the transport subsidy scheme.

What the government did to bring the country taxi operators to heel on this issue was deplorable. The department refused to pay those operators who were not agreeing to the government's proposal for their taxi vouchers. It withheld payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars, until, finally, the country taxi operators agreed to the government's demands and the payments were then made. That was a deplorable abuse of power by the government. Government members might not have liked to see that appear in the light of day; I am glad that the taxi select committee has revealed it.

I think that a great deal more evidence could have been collected by this committee had it had a longer time in which to collect it. However, the committee was anxious to ensure that a report was presented to the Legislative Council and that certain issues were aired, and they have been aired. Like other members, I commend those who assisted the committee in preparing and presenting the report.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (21:00): I rise to support the comments of my colleagues on this committee. The select committee was asked to inquire into and report upon practices and opportunities for reform in the taxi industry in South Australia. In particular, term of reference (a) called for the committee to investigate the commercial and advisory structure of the industry and potential for conflicts of interest thereto.

From the evidence provided, it became clear that two peak bodies, the Taxi Council of South Australia and the Premier's Taxi Council, did not reflect the functions and composition of each respective body. Furthermore, the similarity in the names of the two bodies caused confusion between the two and the role they play within the industry. The committee therefore recommends that the Premier's Taxi Council change its name to reflect better its function, and for the Taxi Council of South Australia to replace the word 'council' in its name to reflect better its role as an industry association.

Whilst not a formal recommendation from the committee, the committee saw merit in allowing nominated spokespersons of disability groups and pensioners to become members of the Premier's Taxi Council to gain better representation from a broad spectrum of taxi users. Term of reference (e) called for the investigation into causes and remedies for assaults upon drivers and assaults by drivers. The Taxi Council of South Australia, the Adelaide Cab Drivers Association, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI), SAPOL and the Transport Workers Union made a number of suggestions to address the safety concerns for both customers and drivers.

However, the committee found that all parties had not been proactive in utilising technology to improve safety and efficiency. The committee therefore recommends that the Minister for Transport proactively promote and encourage new technology to improve safety and efficiency and enforce driver/passenger safety. Further to these two recommendations, the committee recommends that, given the important role in overseeing and regulating the industry, a dedicated unit of DTEI should be established to oversee the taxi industry.

This recommendation is due largely to evidence which indicated that complaints and issues—including recommendations to improve safety raised with the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure—are not being adequately addressed. The committee believes that these issues would have received more attention had there been a dedicated unit for the taxi industry within DTEI. I thank my colleagues and also the research officer and the secretary for their dedicated work on this issue.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (21:03): I was not planning to contribute, but I feel obliged—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: This is my dissenting statement, which is part of the report, for the benefit of the Hon. Ms Lensink, which she would know if she had read the report. I feel obliged to respond to what the Hon. Mr Lawson in particular had to say. This select committee has been a huge flop in terms of what it was supposed to achieve and why it was set up. As I indicated earlier, these committees are set up to get a bit of a political run out of a few things, and this one failed spectacularly in that. Let us look at the top three recommendations.

The first is that there be a separate unit within DTEI. Well, that is pretty revolutionary! I mean, hold the presses: we are going to rearrange a government department, everybody. That is the number one recommendation. Number two is that we rename the Premier's Taxi Council, and number three is that we rename the Taxi Council of South Australia. So, the three biggest issues facing the taxi industry are the composition of the department that oversees it and the names of two of the bodies.

The committee's mover and chairman (Hon. Mr Brokenshire) issued a media statement headed, 'Corruption inquiry into the taxi industry formed in parliament'. A corruption inquiry, and yet the top three recommendations are about the arrangement of government departments and the naming of industry bodies. In fact, the majority members of the committee found that the committee heard a number of allegations but was not presented with any substantiated evidence of fraud and corruption in the taxi industry. As noted in the dissenting statement from the Hon. Mr Gazzola and me, the only credible witnesses we heard from were the departmental officers, the Taxi Council of South Australia, the Transport Workers Union and South Australia Police, which I think made only a written submission.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Sorry; I stand corrected. The recommendations—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Dawkins has had his go.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: —were almost comical, and came down to the suggesting of name changes. In relation to country taxis, the country taxi organisation and the various people who operate country taxis came to the committee. I am disappointed that they had been misled, I believe, into thinking that this committee would somehow address the concerns that they were raising. I acknowledge that the people in Mount Gambier—and, in particular, the two taxi operators there—do indeed operate a very fine service that is well regarded by the people in the city. However, what this committee has done is talk to a lot of the country taxi operators, many of whom say, 'We want a licensing system like the city.' Simultaneously, this committee is arguing that the licensing system in the city is riddled with problems: the plates are too expensive, there is trading, there are people giving licences to each other, and they are not getting paid enough. It is just riddled with all sorts of problems.

So, what should we do about country taxis that do not have this licensing system? We should introduce the same system that they have in the city. That is the simultaneous conclusion of this committee. It is just beyond absurdity.

When it comes to country taxis, this government has introduced state-wide country taxi accreditation for the first time. I understand and acknowledge that many of the country taxi operators want a licensing system. However, what this committee has recommended does not address that at all, because it is just saying, 'Well, let's set up the same system as in the city.' It has not tried to define what those boundaries ought to be.

The committee never addressed the serious issues related to moving to such a system. How do you overnight create something that has an economic value? What about the people who are already operating? Does that mean that they get some sort of first dibs on the system? Then do you end up with the problems that the majority members say exist in the city, where you have untrained drivers who are doing it only because they are being paid by interstate owners, and so on? There is that whole range of things that are simply not contemplated by the majority members of the committee. It is quite simplistic just to say, 'Let's have a country taxi licensing system' without addressing any of those major issues.

Indeed, as we acknowledge in our dissenting statement, there are important things that the taxi industry needs to do in relation to training with respect to new technology and security for both passengers and drivers. However, those things are being addressed through various mechanisms, whether it be the department, the Taxi Council of South Australia or, indeed, through national agreement. As we know, at the recent ministers of transport meeting there was discussion about setting up a framework for taxi training across the country.

It is important that the taxi industry provides a good and safe service for South Australians, but those things are being addressed. However, this committee, which supposedly was going to expose corruption and all sorts of problems, has not really come up with any substantive evidence.

The most clear example of that is in relation to corruption. We had some extraordinary evidence from one of the witnesses—who, it must be said, did not take a shine to me or the Hon. Mr Gazzola. In his statement, that witness talked about al-Qaeda—I think it was al-Qaeda; he certainly mentioned terrorist organisations being involved in putting together fake taxis in Sydney to operate for the purpose of terrorist attacks. I do not know much about terrorism, but I would think, if you were a vile enough person to commit terrorist acts, stealing a taxi would not be beyond you and that you would have to go to such trouble to create one in order to fool authorities.

This witness contended that was happening, and had happened in Sydney. He contended that the large number of Indian students involved in taxi driving in South Australia is evidence of some sort of potential terrorist link. It is an outrageous, deplorable and racist slur to suggest that because a large number of people from other countries are involved in driving taxis it is some sort of evidence of a terrorist connection.

That is the credibility and the standard of the evidence which the committee is putting before this parliament. The person who made those statements was given two hours, or at least an hour, of the committee's time. Further submissions from that person were accepted by the committee, when that is the standard to which this parliament is being held by the majority of members of this committee: someone believes there is active terrorism involvement in the taxi industry in South Australia because Indian students are driving them. That is what the majority of members of this committee are standing for with this report. It is a disgrace and it brings this parliament into disrepute. This committee has been an absolute embarrassment to this parliament.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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