2016-06-09
Debate resumed from 8 June; motion of Mr DALIDAKIS (Minister for Small Business, Innovation and Trade).
Ms DUNN (Eastern Metropolitan) — I rise to speak on the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Amendment (Public Safety) Bill 2016. This bill seems innocuous on first sight. It repeals a historical artefact from law. In ordinary circumstances, this chamber would rightly approve such a bill with brief consideration due to it. Yet this bill, as modest as it is in length, opens up complex issues. This bill is being rammed through Parliament by the government with a sense of urgency. If only the government had applied a sense of urgency to the disruption happening to the taxi industry in this state, we would not find ourselves in the predicament we are in today.
Ridesharing services have been in Melbourne for several years and were well established by the time the Labor Party came to power in 2014. Since that time all we have seen on the part of members of this government have been a few public utterances on how they want to consult stakeholders in the industry and a quarterly stakeholder meeting, with too little progress between sittings. There has been absolutely no indication of a time line for introducing ridesharing legislation and regulation, with words like ‘imminent’ and ‘soon’ bandied about. There have been no regulations established to provide guidance to ridesharing platforms, leaving consumers and drivers in a legal grey zone in relation to appropriate and important protections. There has been no public indication of establishing industry‑wide agreement on transitional arrangements, preserving hail and rank rides for taxis and compensation for taxidrivers and operators. Instead of being proactive and establishing a regulatory framework for ridesharing, the government abdicated responsibility to the courts.
Ridesharing can work in other jurisdictions. I am going to turn for a moment to describe a couple of jurisdictions that have successfully regulated ridesharing. I turn first to the ACT, where we see a successful Greens‑Labor government. In relation to ridesharing, it has managed to regulate there for mandatory driver medical assessments, minimum driver training requirements, vehicle inspection by government‑accredited inspectors, specific compulsory third‑party insurance and property insurance. When we look at taxis in the ACT, we see it has managed there to regulate reduced fees of 75 per cent, a reduction of existing regulatory requirements and retaining sole access to rank and hail markets, and the disabled taxi scheme remains in place, providing subsidised fares.
I turn now to what is happening in South Australia, another jurisdiction that has managed to regulate successfully for ridesharing, which becomes effective on 1 July this year. In South Australia there is a $1 levy per ride across platforms to fund a compensation arrangement for taxi plate owners and drivers; a flat annual licence fee of $85, with hire car limousines reduced to the same licence fee; and safety and insurance checks for ridesharing. In terms of the taxis and how they are treated in that state, there is an $80 million compensation fund funded by that $1 levy; $30 000 compensation per plate; a higher tariff for taxi fares on Friday and Saturday nights, recognising that there are workplace safety issues at those times; and a general taxi fare increase.
It is not clear what the government hoped to achieve through letting the Brenner case take its course, but it is now clear it did not go as the government had planned and as a result we have this rushed legislative intervention. The government has claimed it urgently needs to repeal section 159 of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 to provide certainty to taxi industry regulators so that they can ensure that drivers who lose their accreditation are barred from driving a commercial passenger vehicle. Yet we know that there are 11 cases before the courts where UberX drivers have been charged with providing commercial passenger services without the accreditation and licensing expected of a taxi services provider.
If we look at the state of play as it currently stands after the decision by His Honour Judge Chettle, it would seem that in terms of the progression of section 159 a de‑accredited driver who takes the decision to continue to drive may be prosecuted by the Taxi Services Commission and may take defence using section 159 as the mechanism to do so. There are a lot of ifs, buts and maybes in that. I have not even taken the time to talk about the number of passengers who might have been in that vehicle and whether they in fact were charged separate and distinct fares, which shows what lack of clarity there is around this matter.
It is clear that the taxi industry regulators have used power bestowed under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act to penalise ridesharing providers. In the absence of a regulatory framework for ridesharing, the repeal of section 159 will keep this path open for attacks on ridesharing providers, and many more UberX drivers and other rideshare providers may find themselves in the dock. The Greens are concerned that the repeal of section 159 will again make ridesharing illegal in Victoria. We care about the safety of all passengers — taxi and ridesharing passengers — and that is what makes regulation of ridesharing even more important. We note that the Director of Public Prosecutions will be appealing the decision of His Honour Judge Chettle. The Greens are concerned that this is an attempt to keep ridesharing in a legal grey zone and foist uncertainty onto the people who use it.
In its 19 months of existence this government has failed to put a bill before the house to address the urgent regulatory shortcomings in this sector. It has failed to provide certainty to the thousands of passengers that use ridesharing services each week. It has failed to provide certainty to the many drivers that have invested their own capital in vehicles to start their own businesses as ridesharing providers. It has failed to do anything proactive about the unstoppable disruption to the regulated monopoly of the taxi service industry. It is a perverse debate that we are concerned about taxidrivers and their accreditation while rideshare drivers are not required by regulation to hold any accreditation.
The Greens are well aware of the complexity of the issues. We know that passenger choice, passenger and driver safety, workers rights and fairness for drivers in the taxi and ridesharing industry are equally important. With each day passing that this state lacks a negotiated agreement on taxi services the ridesharing market will grow and the taxi industry will be weaker. The Labor government has not given this Parliament a solid time frame for the introduction of the legislative framework for ridesharing. It has not outlined the principles that would apply to such a legislative framework. Its record in the area of taxi services is poor.
In this light the repeal of section 159 of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 can only be seen as a retrograde step hurriedly designed to preserve a blunt instrument with which to attack providers of ridesharing services. I will of course explore these matters further in the committee of the whole.
The Victorian Greens therefore oppose this bill.