transportation and utilities committee · 2016-10-31 · 2016 . townsville - 1 - 19 oct 2016 ....

TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES COMMITTEE

Members present: Mr SR King MP (Chair) Mr JN Costigan MP Mr MJ McEachan MP Mr R Molhoek MP Mr LP Power MP Mr CG Whiting MP

Staff present: Ms K McGuckin (Research Director)

PUBLIC HEARING—INQUIRY INTO THE HEAVY VEHICLE NATIONAL LAW AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2016

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2016 Townsville

Public Hearing—Inquiry into the Heavy Vehicle National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Townsville - 1 - 19 Oct 2016

WEDNESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2016 ____________

Committee met at 4.30 pm CHAIR: Good afternoon all. I call this public hearing of the Transportation and Utilities

Committee to order. Thank you for your interest and your attendance here today. I would like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet. My name is Shane King, the member for Kallangur and chair of this committee. With me here today are Mr Rob Molhoek MP, member for Southport and deputy chair; Mr Jason Costigan MP, member for Whitsunday; Mr Matt McEachan MP, member for Redlands; Mr Linus Power MP, member for Logan; and Mr Chris Whiting MP, member for Murrumba.

The committee has advised the public of this inquiry by publishing details on the parliamentary website and by writing directly to a number of stakeholders. Witnesses at today’s public hearing will appear in the order outlined on the public hearing program. The program has been published on the committee’s webpage and there are hard copies available from committee staff.

The committee’s proceedings are proceedings of the Queensland parliament and are subject to the standing rules and orders of the parliament. The committee will not require evidence to be given under oath, but I remind witnesses that intentionally misleading the committee is a serious offence. You have previously been provided with a copy of instructions, so we will take those as read. Only the committee and invited witnesses may participate in the proceedings. As these are parliamentary proceedings under the standing orders, any person may be excluded from the hearing at the discretion of the chair or by order of this committee.

The proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. I therefore ask you to please identify yourself when you first speak and to speak clearly and at a reasonable pace. Witnesses will be provided with a transcript. Media may be present and will also be subject to the chair’s direction at all times. The media rules endorsed by the committee are available from committee staff if required. All those present today should note that it is possible that you may be filmed or photographed during the proceedings. I ask everyone present to turn mobiles and computers off or to silent mode.

The purpose of today is to assist the committee with its examination of the Heavy Vehicle National Law and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. The bill proposes to amend two acts, the Heavy Vehicle National Law Act 2012 and—I would say the following is the main reason for us being here today—the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 to allow a regulation to be made providing for a scheme for the payment of financial assistance to the taxi and limousine industry in order to implement the main elements of the $100 million industry adjustment assistance package.

I would like to welcome all witnesses who are appearing today. We do thank you for your detailed submissions that we have received. The committee has had the opportunity to read your submissions and familiarise ourselves with the issues you have raised. The purpose of today’s hearing is to further explore aspects of the issues you have raised in your submissions. I ask you to keep your introductory statement as brief as possible, to around five minutes, just to allow sufficient time for the committee to discuss the issues with you. We are really looking for ways to make the industry adjustment package more palatable. We have heard at recent hearings loud and clear that the taxi industry finds what is proposed unpalatable. We are trying to seek information to see what the taxi industry would like. I call our first witnesses from Townsville Taxis: Angela Rheeders, General Manager; Brett Hoban, Townsville Taxis Fleet Compliance Officer; Stephen McBride is in attendance; and Mr Les Gist, Supreme Taxi Co CEO.

GIST, Mr Les, CEO, Supreme Taxi Co.

HOBAN, Mr Brett, Fleet Compliance Officer, Townsville Taxis

RHEEDERS, Ms Angela, General Manager, Townsville Taxis CHAIR: would one of you—perhaps Angela—like to make an opening statement? Ms Rheeders: I am Angela Rheeders, General Manager of Townsville Taxis. I would like to

thank the committee for giving us this opportunity today to present what we are concerned about. I will give you a little bit of a rundown about Townsville Taxis. We have 135 taxis of which 23 taxis in



our fleet are fully wheelchair accessible taxis. The priority of those taxis, as you may know, by legislation is to pick up the wheelchair passengers first and foremost. That is their main priority. We abide by our contract to supply those service levels to the department of main roads on a quarterly basis. We need to achieve those minimum service levels as per our contract. We are very accountable for what we do.

In saying that, our drivers are also very experienced in that. We do intensive training with them to ensure that their customer service is achieved in that area. We take the disabled and the schools—we do support the schools with the school contract with regard to special needs children. We take that very seriously and it is a great part of what we do on a daily basis.

We have a call centre, which is a local call centre. We employ almost 40 people in the call centre. They are all local people, which is of great pride to us. We have 550 drivers who are associated with our booking and dispatch system. We have 135 owners and we have about an additional 40 operators on top of that. Overall, there are about 750 people who are directly reliant on Townsville Taxis on a monthly basis for their income. It does not only affect the taxi owners; there is a whole lot of people who are affected by the taxi industry. Directly there are 750 people in Townsville alone, which is equivalent to what QNR was before. In saying that, there was a flow-on effect with all the local businesses, the garages, the tyre people, the schools, the doctors et cetera. There is a huge flow-on effect to the community from Townsville Taxis. Townsville Taxis are main employment providers in Townsville. On a fortnightly basis we hold sessions to engage new drivers. Despite the change to the regulation that drivers no longer have to be trained, we will continue to train our drivers and provide a high level of customer service.

In relation to the industry adjustment package, what you read in the newspaper and on websites that the department of main roads is putting out there seems to be geared towards the license owners. I would like to put it out there that it does not only affect the license owners, although they are the core business—they are the ones who put up the initial capital to purchase those licences—it does affect everyone. The transitional package should not be purely for the owners; it should also be available to the taxi operators, the taxi drivers, the booking centres and so on. I do believe that some thought needs to be given to that. It should not be only the license owners; it needs to be right across-the-board.

In talking about it being only the taxi licence owners, as far as I understand $20,000 will be paid to a taxi owner limited to two licences. I think that is grossly unfair. As time has gone on, the confidence within the taxi industry has grown and they have put their money up. Limiting it to $20,000 for two licences per owner needs to be looked into. It should be per licence—whatever value comes out of that.

In relation to the transitional assistance package, as I have touched on there, I think hardship support needs to come to the drivers. I do not think it should only be a financial support; I think it also needs to be psychological support to the entire industry. Since the ridesharing was allowed to continue unabated from March 2014 when it was acting illegally, the industry has been affected in terms of the morale and the instability. It has really affected everybody negatively. Whether it has affected us financially or not, it has definitely had an impact on people’s morale and their whole outlook. I think that has had a greater impact than anything else. It is the uncertainty and the fact that even when the changes to regulations were announced, they contained no definitive answers. It was very vague. There were no specific answers. It has given nobody any confidence in what was supplied. The quicker that some sort of direction is given, the better. It needs to be done. At least then we will know what we are dealing with. Psychological support needs to be given as much as financial support right across the industry.

Centrelink or those sorts of places is obviously where the owners, operators and drivers are going to eventually draw their income from if this goes by the wayside. Centrelink would look at the taxi licence value as what we would do, and that would be based on the last three or so licences sold at that value. They would not be able to get assistance in that regard because it will be regarded as the asset still having value. There needs to be some sort of clear understanding as to what the value is. If the government says, ‘No, it is only worth $20,000,’ or whatever it may be, there needs to be a clear indication as to the value of that licence. If that is the case, the government needs to consider being guarantor of loans as a transition for us through the next few years. I think the government should consider being a guarantor for the loans because obviously the banks would consider it high risk. From my perspective, the government have actually created this and they need to step up and assist where they can.



Just quickly, from an annual licence perspective, obviously there would be an annual licence fee that is charged. I think this needs to be given with strict conditions where perhaps everybody in the personalised transport sector should have a clearly identifiable numberplate that can easily be scanned by the Police Service to determine whether they are ridesharing or who they are in the zoo. Without that, who knows? I could go and get a label off eBay and stick it on the back of my car and the next minute I am a ridesharer. I do believe that the licensing needs to be the same across-the-board and everybody must comply with the same conditions.

The same should go with the CTP class. One should not be given class 1 and the other one class 3. If we are going to have a level playing field, it needs to be level on all fields, whether it be easily identifiable markings on the vehicle or CTP insurance. Without that, it is certainly not a level playing field. I do believe the CTP insurance should be for a commercial licence and right across-the-board because that is what personalised transport is offering. It is a commercial entity.

The new regulations basically said the driver standard no longer applies, drivers do not have to wear uniforms, they do not have to sit English tests et cetera. I do believe this needs to be looked at again. Driver screening needs to be enhanced. We need to have a higher level of criminal history checks with the drivers and regular checks on their licences as is currently the case with taxis. We are given updates every 24 hours, and the same should happen right across-the-board with any personalised transport service provider. This would ensure safety for both the driver and the passenger. I think driver safety is important. Everybody has put a lot of emphasis on passenger safety, but driver safety is just as important as passenger safety. I think there is not enough information about that provided to the public.

I would suggest raising the issue of driver fatigue management. It is a problem. It has been a problem within the taxi industry for quite some time. We can have a driver who goes from driving a taxi and then hops onto a Sunbus and goes and drives a bus. He has already done 14 hours with us and then goes and does four or six hours in a bus or whatever the case may be. It is going to be even harder to control that with ridesharing as they can go in their own car. They have done 14 hours in the cab. They cannot drive longer than that because of our systems. They can then go and do six or eight hours in their own private car. Fatigue management is going to be a really big problem. My suggestion would be to have a central database for Queensland which would be controlled by the driver authority number. No matter which transport sector they are driving for, they should be able to log into that data base and be allowed 12 or 14 hours across-the-board.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. You said a lot of relevant stuff, but that last point is gold. I am sorry to interrupt you.

Ms Rheeders: That is no problem. My last point is that accountability is really a worrying factor to me with the ride sharing or the new personalised transport, as we will obviously know it by this time next year. Obviously I am a South African and now an Australian. I have come from a country where there is no accountability with the taxi industry and it seems to be the way that we are going to be going here. One of the reasons why I got into the taxi industry and am so passionate about it is that I think we offer a fantastic service to the customers and to the public sector. I do not want to see it lost. It seems to be on a downward spiral. I do not know for what reason. The government seems to think that they are offering the customers perhaps a better customer experience, a better product at the end of the day. All they need to do is visit a country where there is no regulations being applied.

It is so fantastic to be here and I can trust my daughters to get into a taxi and know that they are going to get home safe and that that service is there. If ride sharing is allowed to whittle away this industry, there is going to be nobody at 2 o’clock to get my child home, unless they pay a surge price to get home. I really do not want that to happen. I definitely think that needs to be attended to. Surge pricing should not be allowed in any manner or form. I think that is just robbing the public. To add a surcharge on to the fare to pay for all this, once again, I think is thieving from the public to assist a multinational company come in and take over our industry. They offer nothing back to our government. They do not pay GST. All the money goes offshore and there is no accountability. I would like to thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you very much. I forgot to acknowledge the local member, Scott Stewart. Thank you for coming along as well, Scott. I have one question before we go on: Les, you mentioned the annual licence and that there should be a clear number plate and identification. It has been suggested before that ride share should have a light on top, like a taxi has; some sort of light for identification. Do you agree?

Ms Rheeders: No. I think a licence plate would be the ideal part, because at least that can be scanned by the QPS at any stage.



CHAIR: Les, would you like to make a contribution, before we go to general questions? Mr Gist: I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address you on behalf of

Supreme Taxi Co. I have owned and operated taxis in Townsville for over 42 years. My wife and I purchased our first licence at considerable risk. Due to the restrictions by Queensland Transport at that time, we relied completely on it for both our income and superannuation. While we have invested in good faith with further licences and other commitments to the taxi industry, we find our investments dramatically reduced, with no access to the proposed industry adjustment assistance package.

Although ride share in the new form is yet to arrive in Townsville, we have noted the events unfolding in the south-east corner with apprehension and alarm. Despite this, our situation shares many similarities. One is that a taxi operates on tight margins. There are high government and booking office inflexible and ongoing costs. Townsville is currently experiencing a serious economic downturn and taxi profits are well down as a direct result of that. As an example, we are back in the 1980s level of income. Our income right through the 1990s and the 2000s was lower than in the 1980s. That will show you how bad the economic situation is in Townsville. It is a major disaster.

While unemployment is high, our business is struggling to recruit drivers as, frankly, there is such a reduction in the money circulating in the city at present that few people are willing to drive for as little as $12 an hour. We rely on drivers from unskilled areas of the market, and more and more are dependent on overseas workers.

Legislation to quarantine rank and hail work cannot be guaranteed and there is little evidence to suggest that this can or will be enforced. Local governments, not the state government, have the jurisdiction over rank placement and signage. Private property owners such as hotel chains, sporting clubs, et cetera, may create ride sourcing ranks on their own property if they wish to do so. Evidence produced to the IPNRC via the Katter party private member’s bill and the TMR compliance officers provided confirmation that ride share source companies and their drivers were circumventing any legislation in respect to rank and hail.

This was also a key feature of many submissions to the Varghese review, yet the proposed legislation appears to have completely disregarded this and, therefore, our view of the industry and its participants. The industry adjustment package does not provide adequate compensation for rank work, airports or private business and nor does it adequately cater for any future losses.

Compensation: capping the licences at two is unfair, as every licence has a mortgage or covenant over that particular licence by the lending institutions. Licence compensation should be per licence and eligibility should be to every licence owner, regardless of ownership structures: trust, superannuation funds, proprietary limited companies, business names or individuals. Why should my company be deemed unworthy for any compensation to allow for adjustments or innovation? Previous Queensland governments have forced taxi owners to sign away any employment opportunities extended to the taxi industry if they owned a taxi licence. It is little wonder that many in the taxi industry are so deeply involved in and integral to the industry, as they have no other means of financial support should it collapse. By government decree, they have had no choice. Like thousands of others, I entered into contracts with the Queensland government that have now been overturned with limited recognition for the impact of those decisions at grassroots levels.

I would tender several items critical to the future viability of the taxi industry. Ride share should have to purchase licences and the proceeds used to compensate the taxi licence owners. All vehicles involved in personalised transport must have high-quality security cameras for passenger and driver safety. The high cost of CTP and vehicle registrations must be moved to class 1 by 1 November 2016, to allow a true and level playing field. We welcome the current fee waivers, but they should be retained as these contribute to high on-costs for operators. Supreme Taxis believe that all fees for taxis and ride share should be identically given to each and every one who undertakes taxi work.

The removal of driver training has meant that our RTO has suspended operations. We no longer have work for a trainer and there are corresponding reductions in office hours for our administration staff in the RTO. The impact of the legislation is felt more widely in the industry than by just drivers and owners.

Lastly, I would like to comment on the consultation process that has surrounded the deregulation of the taxi industry. The Katter bill received over 500 submissions, many from mums and dads, investors and drivers who all have a stake in our industry. Many like myself work all day and all night, and then spend hours compiling submissions for politicians and public servants. Hundreds of people wrote submissions and attended the OPT review meetings with Jim Varghese to discuss our industry and its plight, to offer suggestions and ways forward, and to outline the massive financial risks and losses we are facing.



It has been disappointing to note the almost complete disregard of those views and the inconsistent focus on throwing our industry back decades. Consultation involves more than a mere exchange of information. For consultation to work and to be effective, people should be contributing to the decision-making process, not only in appearance but also in fact. When Storm Financial collapsed, there was a major investigation around Australia. What the Queensland government has done to the taxi industry leaves that looking like a kindergarten situation. It has been bigger, brighter and better, and I think the Queensland government is going to suffer the same fate in this state.

Yesterday, it was noted that Queensland Transport, after many arguments, is still charging people to have their licences renewed, even though it is illegal for them to be accepting the money. After many phone calls and many arguments, it was guaranteed to be refunded. What amazes me is that Queensland Transport has taken a new stance. They are now advertising Uber in their publications. This is unheard of in the state of Queensland. It has always been that if you ask Queensland Transport anything, they will say, ‘You’ll have to go and look up the website and find out who to go to’. But here, twice: Uber. I did not print this form. It is a Queensland government form. Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Less, can we have a copy of that? Mr Gist: I have one for you. CHAIR: We appreciate that. With what you have both said, is it possible to get a copy to table?

Could you send it through to the secretariat? Ms Rheeders: I will send it through. CHAIR: Thank you very much. We really appreciate that. Brett, were you going to speak? Mr Hoban: I was not going to speak, but there are a couple of points that Les and Angela did

leave behind, although they covered things quite comprehensively. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you very much for seeing us and listening to us. Townsville is totally different to the South-East Queensland and Brisbane markets. We do not have that ride share component. We do have people who think they are ride sharers, which is such a dangerous situation. That has all been covered before. We are talking about the money distribution here and some sort of compensation.

There are a lot of people involved in this industry. Les touched on the RTOs before. We have two RTOs in this town that were training specifically taxi drivers. Basically they have to shut their doors. The government has stated that you do not need to be trained as a taxidriver. We are still training at Townsville Taxis. We do not believe in what the government is saying. We believe that we have to keep the standards high. They are not mandating the standards; we want to keep them.

Angela touched on the 23 WAT vehicles, wheelchair accessible taxis, in this town. That is 17 per cent of our fleet, which is quite high. Those vehicles are working 24\7. We have at least several WATs on the roads. We are looking after those customers. Les, would there be 300 committed wheelchair users?

Mr Gist: At least. Mr Hoban: At least that, in this town. Without us, they have to go to other places and there is

not much option. We do look after those people. A lot of the drivers are committed to a certain number of people and they look after certain people, as well. You are going to lose that.

CHAIR: That personal touch. Mr Hoban: That personal touch. The wheelchair cars are my passion. I used to drive one. I

know a lot of people out there. We all know those people personally. We get to know their lives. They become friends. Those vehicles have to be really looked after. The vehicles are not making any money. They are more expensive to run and they are more expensive to buy. It costs $80,000 to set up a WAT vehicle. What has been proposed for our industry is not helping at all. The running costs of those vehicles are huge; they are massive. Those vehicles particularly need to be looked after.

We understand there is was a lift-fee component about to come in. We have no detail. We do not know. We can promise our drivers that. We bring our drivers from one side of town to the other side of the town. They have to travel 40 kilometres sometimes to pick up those people. Who is going to do that in a ride share business? No-one. Those people are looking at an overall business. It is not just the WAT vehicles. It is the elderly people the cars pick up. There are lots of people on that side. My heart goes out to them. I am pleading to you people, if you have an ounce—just an ounce—of it, look after those people. Think of those people in the future. Who is going to look after them? With the



changes going through NDIS, we do not know is happening. It is heart breaking. To give you some idea, we have the rank and hail work. Wow! Whoopee! That is 30 per cent of our business, if that. It is only 30 per cent. We could not cover the costs.

CHAIR: Thank you for that figure. You would say it is a 70 per cent booked market to 30 per cent in Townsville?

Mr Hoban: It is a 70 per cent booked market. CHAIR: It is coming through that in New South Wales it is 80 per cent. Ms Rheeders: It is the other way around. CHAIR: Yes, and in Queensland we are getting different from different areas. That is important

to get that. Mr Hoban: It is only because of the Friday, Saturday night traffic. We have a well run city

centre. We do not have many problems. Some people will disagree. Ms Rheeders: On the whole. Mr Hoban: On the whole. They are the issues I really wanted to point out. We dispatch an

average of 2,700 jobs a day out of our little centre. For a population that is going down. This town is on 16 and a half per cent unemployment. We cannot afford another hit. As Les and Angela have said, it affects 750-plus people directly.

CHAIR: With what you said with the rank and hail, Les pointed out that local government and private owners can just circumvent that anyway.

Mr Hoban: Of course they can. Ms Rheeders: Yes. CHAIR: I appreciate that in your contribution. Mr MOLHOEK: I want to ask a question of Angela. You mentioned the minimum service levels

in accordance with your contract obligations for providing accessible services. Is that contract with the Department of Communities?

Ms Rheeders: Department of Main Roads. Mr MOLHOEK: It is a condition of the taxi licence? Ms Rheeders: No, we do a service contract for the area, a taxi service licence contract with

the Department of Main Roads in Townsville, and it is part of that contract that we have to supply those minimum service levels. We actually have to attain them.

Mr MOLHOEK: To Main Roads. Ms Rheeders: Yes. Mr MOLHOEK: The government subsidises some of those fares, does it not, for disability

services? Ms Rheeders: No. Mr Gist: No. To the person. Ms Rheeders: To the individual. Mr Gist: To the person, not to the industry. The government has never given from day 1, from

back in 1980 when they implemented the first M40 cars, the government never gave any contribution of finance. When they implemented the M50 cars, which is a wheelchair accessible vehicle, they still did not implement it. They gave the passenger who rides in it 50 per cent but not to the owner. The owners of those licences have never, ever been compensated.

Mr MOLHOEK: The passenger gets their travel subsidised. Mr Gist: Yes. 50 per cent. Mr Hoban: Only up to a certain amount though. Mr MOLHOEK: How do they claim that subsidy? Mr Hoban: They have a card. Mr MOLHOEK: They get it in an instant discount from the driver? Mr Hoban: It is an instant discount. We actually do the paperwork. Mr MOLHOEK: Then you have to claim the balance back?



Mr Gist: The documents go through to Cabcharge via the terminal. They came to an agreement with Cabcharge some 10 years ago it would be now and Cabcharge then reimburse whatever that percentage of the fare is. Cabcharge has closed it up. When they originally opened it up it was a little cheque butt and they were paying it and then they eventually put it through to the Cabcharge machines in the car which cost several million dollars to do and that then goes from the meter now straight to Cabcharge and then Cabcharge in Sydney verify those fares to make sure that you went from point A to point B. As an example, if you stop and you go in and pick up a paper for a person who is in the wheelchair, you might go in and pick up their medical prescription, Queensland Transport will refuse to pay that entire fare. The driver will go from here to there, he will stop there to do a good turn for the passenger, and the passenger and the driver will not get paid for that fare because he stopped on the way. What the transport department expects you to do as a driver, they expect you to take the passenger out of the car, let him go and get his own groceries, you pay off at that point and then they wait on the side of the road for another car to come along and pick him up. That has been the system all the time. I have been very unpopular over a long period of time, now for 30 years, over that. I have argued about it, I have won them, but I haven’t been involved in that area for the last probably, say, five years.

Ms Rheeders: What I would like to point out to you though is with the introduction of NDIS and the Taxi Subsidy Scheme there appears to be something that they seem to have overlooked and that is that the Taxi Subsidy Scheme will eventually be transitioned into the NDIS scheme so the only people who will eventually be valid for the TSS subsidy will be those over 65 and partially disabled. For the NDIS they will need to be under 65, permanently disabled and no longer qualify for the TSS subsidy scheme. The concern here is that where they were given a mobility allowance through Centrelink all it has done is transferred it across, where before they could spend it on groceries et cetera. With the NDIS and the overseeing of the NDIS that mobility allowance will be used for transport. However, it is a fraction of what the subsidy is that they are receiving at the moment. The disabled will certainly be disadvantaged by this. I have brought it up to the minister for disabilities here. I have an appointment with her in a little while to highlight that even more to her. There has not been enough investigation on that. That was federally funded to the state. That money will go back to the federal government and the disabled are definitely going to be disadvantaged by that whole process. It definitely needs to be looked into because once they transition into the NDIS they no longer get subsidised.

Mr WHITING: You said before that you have had 42 years in the taxi industry here in Townsville starting out with one taxi licence. On the ownership structure, do you own them personally or your company?

Mr Gist: My wife and I jointly own two in our own name and then we have several other names which were set up for when I disappear out of the system—someone calls me up to Heaven. We have got them in our superannuation fund and we have got them in a company name called Willjoy Pty Ltd and we have got them also in a company called Queensland Country Investments. Between all those we will only get the two in our private name under this. There are hundreds of people like me who are being just totally victimised because their licences have been put into a company name for whatever purpose or reason. The bank still holds those particular licences with a mortgage on and eventually the bank is going to say, ‘Hey!’ Someone is going to get a knock on the door by one of the banking institutions and those licences will be off them because today there is no market value. The value of a taxi licence in Townsville is zero.

Mr WHITING: Do you know the last sales figure for a taxi licence here in Townsville? Mr Gist: Last sales figures were up around the—the third one back was 550 no shares, right?

The last one—someone else might be able to answer that—it was about 490. Ms Rheeders: The average on the last sales is 442,000: the average of the three last sales

that were made. Mr Gist: Were they with wheelchairs in it? Ms Rheeders: No, the wheelchairs are 330,000. CHAIR: When actually were they? Ms Rheeders: Our last sale was in October 2014 through a deceased estate. Mr COSTIGAN: No sale since then? Ms Rheeders: No.



Mr Gist: The bank will not lend money on it. I had Suncorp talking to me the other day and they asked me what the situation was and whether I would keep them abreast of where it is because they have just closed off and Westpac is the same.

Mr COSTIGAN: It is a no-go zone? Mr Gist: It is a no-go zone Mr COSTIGAN: From the bank’s perspective. Mr Gist: Yes. Mr WHITING: You said that income has dropped which is reflecting the economic reality.

Shane, who is from the Gold Coast, said his, for different reasons, was a 20 to 30 per cent drop of income. What has been an approximate drop that you have seen for your fleet?

Mr Gist: I would say we are over 30 per cent—well over. I would say close to 40 per cent. It has been going down for the last two years. You are fully aware of the dramatic situations that happened in Townsville. There were 700 or 800 at QNI. Since November last year there has been 900 put off with Queensland Rail—not Queensland Rail, but Aurizon. Another 300 received notice the other day to say that they are being terminated some time between now and December. That is having a ripple effect on everything. That is one of the reasons we cannot get drivers, because you get a driver, you put them out, and they come back in a week’s time and say there’s no money out there. I don’t blame them because you don’t expect them to sit there for nothing, but we want to service the public as well.

Mr POWER: Has the value of leasing a licence changed in the Townsville market as well? Mr Gist: In Townsville at this point in time it has not, but it is only a matter of time. Ms Rheeders: I will add to that that the value of the lease when you actually put a lease out

has not dropped. However, it is making it more and more difficult for the lessee to pay that lease fee and they are constantly negotiating with the owner to have it reviewed because of the downturn in the economy.

Mr COSTIGAN: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, everyone, for your support of the committee today. Can I put on the record that I am a great fan of Townsville Taxis. I have been using the service on and off since 1990. On a day like today I think of people like Keith Brett and Dan Villalba who were my favourite cabbies back in the day running me around town. Well done on the service that you provide to the city, a city that is celebrating its 150th anniversary as Townsvillians would be well aware. Again thank you. I just want to ask about mental health. There is a lot of discussion in the community today broadly about mental health. Can I ask any of you to make comment about how this situation is impacting on your plate holders, your drivers or the industry in terms of their mental state and their wellbeing?

Mr Gist: It is affecting them. I have got great concerns because I have been talking to a few owners who are extremely down in the dumps and I have arranged for organisations to speak to them as well. I am concerned that by Christmas there will probably be two deaths in Townsville over it and that has had me completely disturbed. I have arranged for those people to go to counsellors to get counselled. Hopefully that will be sufficient to get them over. I hope I am 100 per cent wrong and if I am not wrong I hope I have been successful at pushing them in the right direction and moving them so that they get the assistance they want. I think the drivers have got—I wouldn’t say a bad attitude at the moment, they have an attitude that, hey, no-one cares about us, no-one is helping us. I think that is a reflection—and I think Brett made that comment or Angela, one of them—and it is making an impact on them. It is not only our industry, it is the limousine industry. I heard the other day where an old lady in Brisbane who has one or two limousine licences is just devastated. Limousine licences are being handed back.

CHAIR: Yes, we have heard from people with limousine licences and we are hearing that there is no value at all. They can use a transit lane, and that is basically it. We have gotten all that down for our report. Angela, you did mention that part of this should be psychological support for part of the adjustment scheme.

Ms Rheeders: Definitely. I see it on a daily basis with the operators that I talk to and you can hear the panic in their voices. They are panicking out there. The stress levels are extremely high and the drivers argue amongst themselves because they are fighting for the last dollar. In terms of the call centre itself, they are concerned about their future income. A lot of them have mortgages just like everyone else has. There is a lot of uncertainty and I think that is doing a lot more damage than anything else. If there is a downturn in the economy, you all adapt and you work through it. However, the uncertainty that has been impacted by this on the taxi industry is definitely having a negative psychological effect on just about every single person involved in the taxi industry.



Mr COSTIGAN: I have a second question. Not that the money is the be-all and end-all, because there are other implications here such as the mental health of people in the industry and so forth. If you were writing the compensation package or the industry adjustment package and you had the power of the pen, there is $20,000 on paper now, but what sort of figure should government be looking at?

Mr Gist: Do you want the truth? Mr COSTIGAN: Please. Mr Gist: It should be $550,000. Simple: buy them back and lease them. Do what Darwin did

20 years ago. Be respectful. Treat the owners with respect and the decency that they deserve. How anyone in government could honestly have offered $20,000 is an insult.

Ms Rheeders: From my perspective, if that was the case—and obviously the government is not going to come up with $550,000 per licence—you should transition it over about eight years, because it will take us about eight years to rebuild from where we are. At the end of the day $550,000 should be, on average, given back to the licence holders—the owners—but perhaps transitioned over a period of eight years, whether it be tax rebates or other benefits given across-the-board, but certainly not $20,000. I think it is an insult to human intelligence, but definitely perhaps transition it over a period of eight years where they can get the value of the asset back and then there is something to work towards. It will give everybody something to work forward for so they can say that their taxi licence has got a value and it is an asset, because you are going to get it back. If that is the case, then it should be transitioned over eight years and then it will still have a resale value.

Mr POWER: Your opinion is that the rank and hail and the licensing and delivery of taxis going forward has no value whatever; you need the entire $550,000?

Ms Rheeders: To open it just to rank and hail would protect our market, but that is ridiculous because that will change overnight because, as we said before, you can have a rank anywhere and who is going to monitor it? Clients are battling as it is, so if we are going to take away the booking—basically taking the safety and security away from the booking market—as it is you do not have to put a meter in your vehicle and you do not have a camera. There is no accountability, there is nothing; it is an open market. In the booked market in terms of that 70 per cent of the fares, there is just no regulation there. It is just ridiculous. You are basically giving away 70 per cent. Even if it is not $550,000, at least give us 70 per cent of what the value is because that is essentially what you are actually physically taking away straightaway—70 per cent of the market.

Mr Gist: If you paid the licences out—and we do not want to harp on it, but if you paid the licences out—and then if you wanted to retain the three levels or only the two levels, as you are proposing, taxis would lease the licence back off you. Why should we as the people of Queensland allow an overseas international company to operate without charging them a licence fee? If the honest thing was done and you bought the licences back and you paid your true value and then you had a charge on a taxi licence of—I will pick a figure out of the sky—$10,000 a year, it would then be sold for the next 100 years at $10,000 a year. You would have rideshare. You might say that they are not going to do rank work and they are not going to do this bulldust and all the rest of it. You might say that they are worth $5,000 a year. The government is going to win. Instead of them trying to put everybody down, there is a chance for them to win because they are out now to grab the money. They want the money. There was a political reason why we went from category 1 to category 3. There should be another political reason why we go from category 3 back to category 1.

The government has been saying and harping for years that taxi fares are too dear. True, they are too dear. The reason? Because of all of the government charges. If we were to wipe out every single government charge, we would reduce our costs by 10 per cent to 15 per cent. That has to be a great thing. It was always stated under the Bjelke-Petersen era that the Queensland taxi industry was an intricate part of their budget per year. It did not matter if you wanted a licence in an area; you got a licence because they had X number of dollars that they were going to recoup out of the taxi industry per year. They just gave licences out and then they went and did it. When I first came into the industry I was not allowed to have a second job. If you did, you were not allowed to have a taxi. You had to sell out of it. That happened for many years and then you were allowed to have a couple. Up until now I could not go out and do anything that was outside of the government regulations. They controlled you and then when it comes along, they say, ‘Hey, Les, you’ve got eight licences. You’ve got them in a company name. We’re not going to give you any money.’ It is wrong. When you were asked should you buy them back, yes, you should and there would be no argument.

Mr COSTIGAN: Thank you. That is what we need to hear.



CHAIR: Thank you. We are hearing that one. Thank you, Mr Gist. We really appreciate your time this afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to come and give us that information. We really appreciate it.

Mr Hoban: Could I just add— CHAIR: There are other people who have to speak, so if you can be brief please, Brett. Mr Hoban: It will be brief. When you are talking about industry assistance, we have also got

call centre costs that have to go up and regulations involving the call centre, and we need to be assisted with that. When you are talking about the suicide and the psychological effects, Angela and I have had a lot of people in Angela’s office and they have broken down. These people are right at their wits’ end. That is why we are seeing these incidents out there. We are bringing them in, getting down to the root cause and with these people it is heartbreaking.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. Angela mentioned that it is lessees, drivers, operators and call centres. Everyone should be involved in this. This is not the first hearing we have done and we are seeing the emotion and the pain out there, believe me, and that is what we are here to report on. Thank you very much for your time.



DOYLE, Ms Lillian, Acacia Limousines Townsville

McNAMARA, Mr Phil, Taxi owner/operator

SAVINA, Mr Neil, Owner/operator, CABSAV Taxi-Cab Operations

SMITH, Mr Shane, First Class Taxis Pty Ltd CHAIR: We might start with Shane because he has come a long way. Shane was with us in

Surfers Paradise the other day and missed out completely because, as usual, it goes over in time. Mr Smith: I do appreciate the people of Townsville giving me this opportunity to talk. I will try

to keep it brief. You have had time to go through my submission and you did ask questions. I am just going to run through a few things. I do want it noted that the taxi industry in Queensland has not punished one person of the public. We have never staged any demonstrations, blockades or whatever as have been seen around the world. Not one member of the public has been penalised by the taxi industry in any way, shape or form. With regard to the Taxi Council submission that was put in, as I mentioned the other day there are some inaccuracies there. I will actually tidy that up regarding the Gold Coast leasing prices and return on leasing.

I represent 74 licence owners—that is, mums and dads, brothers and sisters, sons—so in my entity alone I would represent probably 150 direct owners, 12 employees, eight of which are family members, and suppliers in the hundreds. This is having a cascading effect not only on the industry but also—I agree with the Townsville submission—on the economics up here. We have got Uber, so it is a massive problem that we are encountering. There was one issue that Chris asked about the other day about rank and hail, and Angela touched on it. I wanted to clarify that not only do Uber put geofences around events to actually direct their drivers; they actually do the same to direct their customers. If you are at an event or at a theme park like Movie World—and I have this to submit to you—they can actually tell you to go somewhere where they will pick you up.

Mr WHITING: That is on their app, is it? Mr Smith: That is on their app. When you open that app up and you are at Movie World, it will

actually direct you and say something like, in this case, ‘Welcome to Warner Brothers Movie World. Request when you’re ready and the driver will meet you at the staff pick-up zone.’ They have rank and hail, and you cannot stop it. The only way you can stop that is the minister creates transport infrastructure legislation, which he can do, that informs council planning—that is, state planning and whether it be private or public airports—under a government act which means that the minister declares that all local government areas, airports, railway stations and private land under the private planning act is government infrastructure and therefore that forces that private or that public entity to not allow any ranking to be created. That needs to be done.

I just wanted to tidy up about the leasing issue, because I think there is 11 per cent or 13 per cent put on the leasing return on the Gold Coast. That is actually incorrect. What I have done—and I would like to keep this one confidential—is I have provided a contract. As Angela said—and I thank her for bringing it up—the operators have been paying leased payments because we have a contract. Some of them were signed before Uber came. Some of them were signed just as Uber was entering after we had consulted with the transport minister and our local members that said that Uber would not be allowed to operate in Queensland and compliance would do it. We signed a contract under good faith. The prices in there were based on indicative previous prices. However, because the legislation has not changed, for the last two years I have had to honour that price because if I do not then I get taken to court. As I explained the other day, we are about 26½ per cent down this year. It is going down every weekend in terms of the actual return on that licence for that person, and this is to remain confidential. However, this will give you the figures of what that actual licence returns.

CHAIR: And this is okay? Mr Smith: It is okay for that to be done. Just so you look at it, a lease price with this owner who

purchased a licence not too long ago was paid $4,000 a month including GST. The total return is about $48,000 a year, including GST. The licence values on the Gold Coast when this contract was signed were about $580,000, plus about $55,106 for a share. Overall, to enter the taxi industry on the Gold Coast was close to $630,000. Out of that, that person had a gross return of 8.27 per cent. There are a couple of things we have to consider. If we remove the GST—because we cannot keep it, it gets moved on—his actual return drops to 7.5 per cent gross before income, depreciation, tax and amortisation. If they have it in a self-managed super fund, they lose another 15 per cent due to the tax rates. That brings it down to 6.4 per cent. If they have it in a company name, they lose 30 per cent



due to the company tax rate which brings it down to 5.2 per cent. Therefore, it is not 13 per cent. If we have it in a company name, we are earning 5.2 per cent. It is not in a defined benefit; it is self-managed.

What they have done is they have actually invested in the Queensland government. What I find very frustrating is that the government continually wants us to go into private and public partnerships. You want us to invest our money or our super fund money, whether it be an industry super fund or our own, to develop infrastructure because you do not have the money. They have done that and what do they get? Just 5.2 per cent. They did that because they knew it was a long-term investment. The guarantee was there from the government. That has gone. I do not believe someone saying that taxi licence owners are these rich people. We are doing it at 5.2 per cent. They are the recent returns. Were there any questions regarding turnover figures that I produced for you the other day? Are you happy with them?

CHAIR: Yes. Mr Smith: As you would have heard from other operators, some operators are at 30 to 40 per

cent, so what does that mean with this transition? I do not know what we are actually transitioning to, and I will come to that in a minute. There are these question marks that Mr Varghese has released. He does not even know the price, so what am I actually transitioning to?

The problem that I have is that my turnover figures and my costs are fixed. If you look at this review and this compensation package, it is not enough to get me through the next year. That is the truth. We are going to have operators who are going to go to the wall, who are going to lose their houses. I have one owner who has actually been admitted to hospital. She went for Centrelink but they told her no because she has a business. She has a Queensland business and she has been turned away by Centrelink. That is what annoys her—that the people who have actually allowed this to occur do not see that ramification of her being there.

When it comes to the commercial viability of the taxi licence, every strategic plan until this one, it was one of the guiding principles. Mr Varghese removed that. The government has indicated to the taxi industry that it no longer needs to be commercially viable, so why are we here? As Les says—and I respect Les for the years he has been in—‘Take our licences. Give us fair money.’ The problem is how you are going to fund it, which I will cover a little bit further down the line.

I want to give you some operator expenses just so you know them before you come up with what you think might be a recommendation for an acceptable plan. These are our expenses on taxi licences for one year before we have even made a dollar.

CHAIR: Are they private figures? Mr Smith: No, they are not private; they can be released. If we go through an operator’s

expenses, this does not actually change much depending upon the region you are in. Whether you are in Townsville here which has a 30, 40 or 50 per cent decrease due to the economy, or whether you are combatting Uber on the Gold Coast or Brisbane, these are our expenses. For a CTP premium, you will see on the cover there, it is $6,264.60. Great competition! We have four competitors in the insurance market with exactly the same dollar. That is not competition. In New South Wales, there is one taxi insurance provider. If that is not a monopoly, I do not know what is.

We have to have comprehensive insurance. We have to have general product and liability. We have to have driver personal accident insurance. That totals about $4,400 a year. We then need to have the in-vehicle safety equipment that is mandated. That is about $1,667 a year. Our radio and affiliation fees are about another $10,000. If you look over the next page—and this came straight out of the Varghese review—this will give you a breakdown. We are in this model transition phase. In the model transition phase, if you go to the ‘operator’, you will see that on the left hand side under ‘status quo’ it adds up to $17,524. On the right hand side, we have in-vehicle safety equipment at approximately $200. That is not even to next year, we are not even discussing that.

CHAIR: Can I ask you a question on that. Do they mandate the actual brand of camera? Mr Smith: The Department of Transport and Main Roads release minimum specifications.

However, they made it so restrictive that you could apply if you met those minimum specifications but you had to have things like the ability to have it anywhere in Queensland, technicians everywhere. There is only one company that can actually do that. We cannot have 10 suppliers. It was too prescriptive, so therefore the market, one player.

CHAIR: So if it was a certain megapixel rather than a—



Mr Smith: Storage. We have to be able to submerge it in salt water for seven days. It has to be burnt for two days. There are all these kinds of things. We need to move with the times. It should be up in the cloud, bang. We are paying data usage of $5 a month.

If I go back to the costs, there is mandatory booking affiliation and taxi cleaning. On the left side, Mr Varghese claims $1,860; in the right hand column he has got none. I do not understand. We have CTP insurance of $6,132, which has now gone up a bit; in the right column, it is ‘unknown’. We have a nice little graph there that says the ‘status quo’ is $17,500 and in the modelled transition, with a few question marks, it is $8,000. Our costs have not gone down. In actual fact, as you go through, and you can read this, our total fee before I make a dollar is $25,350.60. That is to ensure the public get home 24 hours a day—security cameras, GPS tracking, A13 duress alarms. I do all of that and some of our drivers do it for less than $12 an hour. They are our actual operating costs.

When it comes to CTP insurance—and Angela and many other people have discussed it—I think it is important that we understand the huge conflict of interest we have here from the insurance industry. We have RACQ out there lobbying on behalf of Uber to make it legalised. We then have less than two weeks later their executive manager, Michael Roth, saying it would be a gross oversight for the state’s largest motoring group, which has 1.6 million members, to not investigate the business opportunities presented by becoming a provider of ride-sharing services. If that is not a conflict of interest, I do not know what is. On top of that, he said, ‘This is something that RACQ could do in the future.’ We do not want to have a dominant player. If they enter the market—I think Uber have 9,000 or 10,000 drivers—they have the potential of 1.6 million.

When it actually comes to the CTP cost, we have to look at the risk that is involved in the operation. These Uber drivers are doing exactly the same as what my taxidrivers are doing. They are driving around Friday and Saturday nights. On top of that, they have a high risk. I know what the driver who drives for me five days a week does. I know he goes home, I know what time he logs off, I know when he starts and he will not be driving days then nights then days then nights. However, the data that has been produced and never been released by these insurance companies because they continually manipulate it is the excess and the risk that is posed to the general public that is not factored into any CTP premium at the moment.

I want to go to the Transport for London, and I will give you a copy of this. CTP is based on risk—that is it. The current scheme we have means that taxis are pooled into themselves. We had class 1 all the way up to class 24. The way that the insurance companies like to have it is basically each individual group self-funds the claims that come out of that group. It is impossible for the taxi industry, with just on 2,600 licences—or, if we look at Brisbane and the Gold Coast, 2,300 taxi licences—to sustain it. We cannot do it.

If we look at some of the figures so we can come up with a future opportunity where you can make recommendations—and making it law would be better—we have 2,618 conventional licences, which are sedan licences, and 642 wheelchair accessible licences. They pay a lower premium on their CTP because they have to spend more money to actually get the vehicle up to the required Australian minimum standards. The CTP for a conventional licence in Queensland totals about $16,400,000. The WAT licence is $325,000. The total CTP from the taxis is $16 million. If we look over at ridesourcing, if we have 9,000 of these—with 4,500 in Brisbane and I read the other day there are 2,000 in Toowoomba and 2,000 on the Sunshine Coast—paying class 1 CTP of $387, it totals $3.1 million. That is fine but we have to look behind that and see the actual risk that is associated with these so we can factor that risk into an acceptable CTP that the taxi industry pays with rideshare.

Uber’s promotional material tells you and the press that they do about 20 hours a week. I will live with that at the moment. However, the president of the Ride Share Drivers Association of Australia, Mr Dan Manchester, stood up at the Brisbane open forum and said there are many Uber drivers doing 90 to 100 hours a week. On top of that, he then went on to say that the reason they are driving even more now is that Uber forced on to them a price reduction. That means the drivers have to drive even more. Mr Craig O’Keefe from the Gold Coast went to the press because he was complaining and saying that he has now been forced to work seven days a week to support his family. We were doing that. The taxi industry was doing that.

Overseas and in Australia, Uber promotes that if you can drive 65 hours a week you will earn £3,360 a month. When you consider that the average wage in the UK is £15,000 a year, it is not too bad. However, you have to do 55 to 65 hours a week to get it. If we believe that and if they are driving this many hours, the only people who have actually done any investigation into this is the Transport for London. That is because it is a mature, ride-sharing market. I will talk about that a bit later. The figures on this page show that they have had a 44 per cent increase in the number of casualties involving taxis and private hire since Uber launched in London in July 2013. The number of casualties



has increased by 30 per cent to 30 June 2015, and 44 per cent to September 2015. They have had a 14 per cent increase in two to three months. The difference is, as they did this study, there are no additional taxis on the road, none. In actual fact, there are fewer taxis on the road in London. What we have got, as it clearly says there, is— The growth in accidents over the 2005-9 baseline has been even faster than the growth in the number of private hire vehicles, suggesting that as well as more vehicles they are being driven less safely.

I am a little baffled about how the RACQ can create a CTP premium for a rideshare driver who does 40 hours a week up in Brisbane and then drives back to the Gold Coast and gets in his car and drives Friday and Saturday nights and drives your family, your kids, home.

CHAIR: We have all of this in the submission. Mr Smith: All I am saying is that it is now up to the committee to come up with some

suggestions as to how we are going to make the taxi industry viable. What we need to do is we have to look at those numbers and say, ‘Okay, if there are 9,000 rideshare drivers, if there is a taxi industry’—and recommendations 26 and 27 says that it needs to be done now. This is out of the OPT. The figure that I have come up with is, if you want to believe the fact that we have 30 per cent rank and hail, basically, the recommendations on the last page is that we all go into class 1. That is the first option. That would mean an extra $5.50 for the average person in Queensland. I think that is reasonable. Since Uber is going to take over Queensland, as it has said, and it wants to be everywhere, I think it is reasonable that the government and the public pay an extra $5.50. If not, everyone moves into class 3—all rideshare—in which case the average premium would be $1,712 for everyone. Just remember that that is tax deductible. It is a business expense. The next one is, if it is not going to be like that and we want to differentiate a little bit because we get, supposedly, the 30 per cent rank and hail, in that case our premium comes up to $2,144 and Uber, or rideshare, goes to $1,586. That is a business expense of doing business in Queensland.

I just want this to be submitted. This was a taxi we run that was hit by an Uber driver and who has been charged by the police. That accident happened on 21 August this year. Uber’s response is, ‘No comment’ and we have not been paid out. For two months that car has been sitting there. They have not sent out an assessor. I have lost income—nothing.

CHAIR: Your insurance company has not? Mr Smith: They have no comment. Here is this company that is backing Uber, and no

comment, no assessor, no payment, nothing. I cannot believe that we are allowing someone to come in and destroy our taxi industry all because they have paid $1.73 million in fines. These people need to be licensed. They need to pay a yearly licence fee. I do not understand how, just because we call it ridesharing, they are not liable to pay a business expense for operating a legal business in Queensland.

There are many people in the real estate industry and the motor dealer’s industry who work only on the weekend. They might do only 12 hours, but they still have to do a course and they still have to pay a government fee. That fee is $1,330.90 for one year, or $2,495 for three years. This is a revenue income that the government needs to look at towards the compensation package for the taxi industry.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. Mr Smith: The evidence there, though, is that these drivers are earning the money to pay it. It

is tax deductible. The fee is there. If someone decides to pay it for three years, that is good for you guys because you can have more money to pay back to us.

CHAIR: That is a licence fee, not a vehicle fee? Mr Smith: It is not a vehicle fee. They pay the CTP and they pay a yearly licence fee. The

CTP, I will just quickly clarify, if you cancel it after two months, you get refunded the CTP component if you are dropping down a class. Someone before they get on the road needs to pay an acceptable business fee before they start operating in Queensland.

The department of transport sent out a document to all taxi operators last year specifying that operators are required to know and not allow people on visas to work more than 20 hours a week when they are in school and unlimited hours when they are not. The way the government enforced that is it charged the director of that company. Uber, or any other rideshare, should abide by the same rule. Their platform should not allow them to be operating more than 20 hours.

The way I see it, the egg is scrambled and you have asked how we are going to fund it. I believe that you need to come up with a figure to buy our licences back by creating a yearly ride-sourcing licence fee that is perpetual. Options 2, 3 and 5 of the OPT review clearly stated that the wheelchair



and disability people will be affected dramatically if those options are chosen. No greater demonstration of that—and I will do it later for you guys—is to open up the Uber app and look at London, New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco, which are defined as mature ridesharing markets. I will show you that there is probably fewer than four wheelchair cars in London for the millions of people who live there. This revenue model is used for when the compensation is paid in eight or nine years, or whatever, to then continue to fund the wheelchair pick-up fee for our disabled so that we are looking after the disadvantaged in our industry. I will leave it there. I appreciate your time. Thanks very much.

CHAIR: Sorry, can we move on to the next statement, please? Mr Savina: I will keep it relatively short and not as comprehensive as Shane. I am from Cairns.

It was better for me to appear at the council hearing. I thank the committee for accepting my evidence. I started driving in 1991 in Cairns and purchased my first taxi licence in 1993. Later that year, I also won a tender for a second licence with my brother, Kevin Savina. I drove, operated, maintained and managed these licences and vehicles and have done that for many years. I have contributed to the industry and have been on the board of Cairns Taxis for eight years and I have been an FNQ representative for the Taxi Council Queensland for two years.

I have progressively reinvested and grown in the industry through tendering and purchasing licences in the Cairns area, where I have two, and Townsville, Brisbane, Gladstone and the Sunshine Coast. I have spread myself across different areas of the Queensland market. I presently have seven licences in these different areas. I operate vehicles in the areas and under local management and I am active and contribute where I can to the benefit of the company and the industry with my knowledge and experience from different regions.

I was gutted by the government’s response to the personalised transport review. Yes, it has been a real rollercoaster ride for me since then, too—namely, the unlevel playing field that has been highlighted, the inequalities between taxis and the ridesharing models and also the $20,000 adjustment and the limit on two licences for a small Queensland business that has grown and developed in Queensland over the past 23 years. It is really gutting the business. Obviously, this business was looking to be my self-funded superannuation down the track.

I also wish to inform the committee of my older brother Kevin Savina’s situation. He is a self-funded retiree. He is presently 65. He and his wife have one and a half taxis between them. One is in his name. The taxis are a major part of his and his wife’s superannuation and income. He is presently in the Gordonvale palliative care hospital with terminal cancer. He is worried that the industry adjustment package is not sufficient and will be cancelled on his passing as the transfer of the licence to his wife will nullify any chance of compensation, as stated by the government. That is one of his major concerns for both his wife and his family and their future funding.

In summary, I have contributed to the industry in many ways. I am not just a passive investor. I continue to do this. I feel that the compensation is insufficient and limited, as you have obviously heard from many other people. In limiting it to two licences where people have invested and grown with the industry over the years is very unfair. I would like to see a level playing field across all of the personalised transport areas and sustainability for the future of the industry. Both my brother, Kevin, and I endorse and support the Taxi Council Queensland’s 16 recommendations in its submission. I thank the committee for hearing me.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Neil. We have a relatively long time with the Taxi Council tomorrow in one of our hearings to go through that in detail. I also appreciate Shane’s contribution. I would like to pass a resolution that we extend the time. I hope that you can stay a bit longer—another 15 to 20 minutes—so that you will get a chance to be heard.

Mr COSTIGAN: Do we need the committee to move a motion? CHAIR: Just a general consensus. Thank you. Ms Doyle: Thank you very much for having me today to speak to you. One of my main

concerns is probably the licensing. Up until about 10 years ago, I was leasing licences, which were whole-of-Queensland licences, because of the situation that I could not afford to buy them. At that time, when regional licences came in and they were a lot cheaper for me, I borrowed on our housing loan and I bought two of my whole-of-Queensland licences, which I still own and operate. I believe that, because I have them in a company name, I am not able to claim the $10,000 back on my licences that is being offered to me, which I think is wrong.

I believe also that Queensland Transport, if they are telling us that they are taking those licences off our vehicles next year—which they are—and they are worth absolutely nothing now to us, they need to give us the whole amount of money back that we paid for those licences. After



reading that white paper that came out to us, in the next breath they then tell us that we then have to go to Queensland Transport and buy annual driver hire licences to go on our vehicles. I already have a licence on my vehicle. Why should I then get a $35,000 loss on those licences and then have to pay another fee to buy another licence to go on my vehicle? I think that is wrong. It is just not the right way to do it.

I have been looking at selling my business. I have now had to take it off the market, because, for one, I now have no licence to sell, which is now depreciating the sale of my business. I am possibly going to have to sell it now just to meet my commitments—if it even does meet my commitments—which is then putting me at a loss and it is putting me in debt at the end of the day, which is not why I have been in business for since 1998.

I have come into this business to operate it to the standard that I feel that I am operating it as. I am operating it as a luxury transport business. We have to purchase vehicles over a luxury car tax value to operate this business. We are not allowed to operate our business on anything under that standard. I have been operating that business to a standard that I feel is required by the Limousine Association and the limousine business.

One of the things that I am a little concerned about with them asking us to buy an annual driver hire licence, having no operator accreditation and having only a 12-month inspection is that anyone can go out there and buy a vehicle to the standard, operate it for 12 months with what they require, take the standard of our production down and what we are doing and take that down to a level. What is it going to do to our industry? We have an industry to a standard that is a level above taxis and the taxis know that. I am not knocking taxis, because they are doing a job that they wish to do and that is fine. I am doing a job in a luxury car tax section, which is the job that I want to do.

CHAIR: Someone mentioned the other day there are two things with that for luxury tax. Even the Holden Statesman standard was not enough. You had to get a metallic coat on it just to put it into the luxury bracket.

Ms Doyle: That is exactly right. I have a 2014 Caprice, which I purchased at the beginning of the year. They take it at luxury car tax value and they were not going to put my licence on it because it came $300 under the luxury car tax value. If I put black paint on it I could get it registered, because you put a paint on it and it comes over that value. What are we supposed to buy?

The thing is, I have a Commonwealth government contract which tells me within my contract that I must supply an Australian-made vehicle. What Australian-made vehicles are out there anymore? There are none. In my contract it says that I must supply a Holden Caprice. If I cannot put a Holden Caprice on my fleet, what am I supposed to supply? I am not allowed European vehicles, so what can I do about that?

CHAIR: That is very relevant and noted. Ms Doyle: I think maybe if they want us to have luxury car tax vehicles they have to bring that

luxury car tax value down to meet that requirement, because even the latest 2016 Caprice does not meet that standard.

CHAIR: The other thing was that the annual inspection was far more rigorous than your general roadworthy.

Ms Doyle: It is. I do not mind putting them over every six months because it keeps your vehicles to a standard, whether it be a limousine or a taxi. I do not object to that one little bit, because you have it inspected and they pick up any little thing when it is happening. It is not costing you money at the end of the day. It is the thing to do, I feel.

Mr POWER: In your view, the regulations have actually created a different type of business to the taxi business because of those standards?

Ms Doyle: It has. It does have a higher standard. We have to do our business on booked bookings only.

Mr POWER: I understand that. Ms Doyle: We cannot tout; we cannot do any of that. Ours are booked bookings only. We have

to state a fare. We have to state to the people what it is going to cost them at the time of booking. We cannot change that price; that price has to be. If we just forget and give them $100 less than what it is supposed to be, too bad, so sad. That is our problem. There is nothing we can do about that. I really do not feel I need to cover anything else. They were the main two things I wanted to cover.

CHAIR: Not to put any light on what you have said, but we have had a few people from the limousine industry and the issues there are coming through glaringly clear.



Ms Doyle: Thank you very much for listening to me. CHAIR: Thank you, Lillian, for your time. Mr McNamara: My name is Phil McNamara. I am an owner-operator with Townsville Taxis. I

apologise for my wife not being able to come this afternoon. I want to start by saying that all of the presentations I have heard from all the groups here I totally endorse in every aspect, including the Taxi Council Queensland submission. I support that wholeheartedly.

A number of times this afternoon and in submissions made, issues of safety have been raised. That is probably the area I want to address this afternoon. I will be brief. Going back years in the taxi industry, we have all heard of drivers being robbed or, sadly, in some instances drivers accosting some passengers. As a result of that, security measures were implemented for the taxi industry. It is not always going to stop those incidents from happening, but with the cameras installed at least they had someone to start looking for. Prior to the change in circumstances, the government had legislated that taxi in-car security systems were to also include audio. I think that was only going to benefit everyone concerned. Over the last couple of years, when you look at social media throughout the world, with ridesharing organisations, there have been plenty of incidents of sexual offences and stuff like that. Just recently one was highlighted on a current affairs program. Also in Townsville recently one of our own taxidrivers was accosted by some passengers. We all talk of a level playing field. If there is one area where I think the level playing field should be instituted, it is in the security of in-car camera systems and audio. To allow a ridesharing organisation to perform the same duties that we do—they are exposed to the same risks that we are exposed to and passengers are exposed to. I cannot see why that side of point-to-point transport cannot come under the same regulations.

I go back to what Lillian said about roadworthiness. Even though the regulations have changed so that from 1 November taxis will be required to go over the pits only every 12 months rather than every six months, I endorse what Lillian said. I think six months is a good time frame. Ridesharing will require a roadworthy certificate issued not by Transport but by an independent authorised roadworthy issuer for 12 months. Roadworthy certificates that are currently issued to you or I when we want to sell our car last for three months, yet they are going to allow ridesharing to have that same inspection done and for it to last for 12 months.

They are the two issues I wanted to address mainly: in-car security—I think if we are going to have a level playing field then that is one area where the playing field should be levelled—and vehicle inspections.

CHAIR: I do not know if Shane endorses this or not, but it is the criteria for the camera that makes it so dear. The ask on those sounded almost unrealistic. If there was a certain megapixel or quality of picture rather than all that strict criteria, would that be—

Mr McNamara: I am sure there are cheaper options. As Shane said, the technology now allows downloading of images to the cloud. I am not that technical, but the point that I think has to be made, though, is that whatever is recorded—the images that are recorded and the sound, if that is introduced as well—have to be tamper-proof.

CHAIR: Obviously, yes. That goes without saying. Mr McNamara: The other thing I did overlook was that all taxis have 24-hour GPS tracking. I

think it was highlighted that in that incident in Brisbane recently the driver turned off his phone and that vehicle was then no longer able to be tracked.

CHAIR: Off the grid. Mr McNamara: Off the grid. They are the areas that I think are crucial to the safety of not only

the drivers of the vehicles, be it taxis or ridesharers, but also, more importantly, the passengers. Mr POWER: Chair, with your indulgence, I just want to make a general comment. This is for

all in the audience. We are really passionate about this issue and we are learning a lot about the detail. Parliament has charged us to look at a particular piece of legislation, which is primarily dealing with, or almost entirely dealing with, these transition payments and a head of power in order to make these transition payments. Our report will be reflective of that and not so much some of these broader issues.

CHAIR: I think we can include— Mr POWER: We will be including as much as we can— CHAIR: I intend to allow a lot of latitude.



Mr POWER: I just wanted to make it clear for people that a lot of this information that people have been putting forward will be transmitting, both through the minister reading the transcripts and us informally speaking to others in the parliament. I just wanted to let people know that when that report comes out it will be dealing primarily with the legislation in front of us, but this is really valuable information.

CHAIR: Yes, it is. Mr Smith: Unfortunately, though, the transition period is too long, and that is plain and simple.

You guys sit until 1 December. Then you go on holidays. I am still saddled— Mr WHITING: We are not in parliament, but we are not on holidays. Mr Smith: I am still saddled with those costs. CHAIR: Would you like to see the bill passed— Mr Smith: What I would like to see is this committee come up with a fair and equitable

compensation package for people who bought a licence in Queensland. On top of that, we need to move this transition period when it comes to security cameras and CTP quicker, because with those massive expenses we have we cannot compete. We cannot. We cannot wait until next August for the RACQ to lobby and then be another year. It needs to come through before 1 December.

CHAIR: And that is the latitude I am talking about. The recommendations we will make to the minister, from what we have heard in these hearings, which are continuing tomorrow and Friday, will come through. Our report is to be handed down in early November. We intend to capture as much as we can. There will be latitude. I understand that this is about the bill, but there are extraneous parts that will influence.

Mr MOLHOEK: Everyone keeps talking about the camera costs. I am trying to get my head around them. From what I saw in your summary, it is about $2,000? Is there an annual fee?

Mr Smith: No. To actually buy the unit—considering that you replace a vehicle every three to four years, the fact of just taking that unit out and transferring it, and wiring, does not always ensure that unit will suffice to go to a new vehicle. You are actually buying new equipment. You are depreciating it over probably three or four years. The total cost of the equipment, the wiring, the install and the upkeep is around $1,700 a year. If you wanted to get it for the first year you are looking at just under $6,000, so we drop it down. What we have to look at is the government establishing a minimum standard, and then if anyone wants to supply to the public passenger transport, whether it be Sony or Panasonic, they apply for it. They have met the minimum standards, they go on a list and it is approved.

Mr MOLHOEK: Why is it so expensive? Mr Smith: Because of the minimum specification that the department of transport put in when

the security cameras came in. If you wanted to ask the Taxi Council? Mr MOLHOEK: Is it streamed? Mr Smith: No. The Taxi Council would have a lot more detail on this. It is not streamed. One

of the issues that we have is if it is stored in a flash card and a secure box, whether it be in the back of a car—that has to go to the police or your taxi booking company. If an assault happens on Friday night, your car is off the road on Saturday. If we look at using streaming, 4G technology, that car can remain on the road. We can look at it. We can have it ‘data-ed’ for 90 days or whatever it is.

Mr MOLHOEK: That would cost more, though, would it not? Mr Smith: No. At the moment they are looking at $5 a month for the data and probably around

about $1,500 for a camera, which would still have an external flash card in there. There is the opportunity to do that, which would cost $400 or $500 a year.

Mr MOLHOEK: Surely the cost of that technology has come down a lot now. Mr Smith: It depends on the specification that the department of transport has mandated. Mr MOLHOEK: What sorts of things are they mandating? Mr Smith: I do not know. CHAIR: Fireproof, waterproof— Mr Smith: It has to be submerged in saltwater for I think 48 hours. It has to be able to be burnt

and still have data recorded. It has to be able to hold temperatures and everything. CHAIR: If it is streaming— Mr Smith: If it is streaming, it is live. Mr MOLHOEK: You talk about the radio room costs.



Mr Smith: Affiliation fees. Mr MOLHOEK: About $12,000? Mr Smith: $10,000 or something a year, yes. Mr MOLHOEK: I would have thought, though, again, with changed technology, those costs

would have come down significantly. Mr Smith: You direct your question to one of the taxi booking managers. For Gold Coast Cabs

I think Gordana Blazevic is coming up. That would be a good question to ask her. I pay them. Mr MOLHOEK: So it is like a fixed fee that you pay? Mr Smith: It is mandatory under the legislation that I am affiliated with a booking company.

The only one on the Gold Coast is Gold Coast Cabs; therefore, they set the radio fee and I pay it. Mr POWER: We heard in Cairns this morning that Cairns does more than 50 per cent of their

telephone calls without a human operator being involved. That obviously would have reduced costs quite significantly.

Mr Smith: It does. Again Gordana Blazevic would be able to answer it for the Gold Coast. Understand though that that goes into a template and that template, it is an automatic template, changes. Angela might be able to give you a bit more information. For example, you call up now and it might have you in the system as living at 93 Bonogin Road and you use a sedan so there are only four people. For most of my bookings that might work. It is fully automated. However, tonight I have got seven friends over and we need a maxi taxi so I can’t use that template. Then what happens is that might change my template again so next time I need to change it again because of the dynamics of what the customer wants. We are looking at it in terms of wheelchairs, mobility devices, things like that, they are going to change. Whilst technology is good, there still needs to be a human interaction there to verify the data going in.

Mr POWER: Notwithstanding that, we heard that it was reduced by 50 per cent. Mr Smith: I would not be able to confirm those figures. Mr Savin: It is cheaper to run those but it still costs. It is only marginally cheaper than having

a tele-op. Mr Smith: With those advancements that the industry has gone through, we have also tried to

engage with the customer a bit more so if you order a taxi you get a text on approach. That costs us money. I know it is cheaper, but we are giving you customer service at a cost. We are paying for that text message. We are paying for the driver. The next stage will probably be where the driver might be able to contact you on the phone, private numbers, so that we can have that interaction and say that I am stuck in traffic or I am coming, I will be there in five minutes especially for somewhere like the Gold Coast where there are high-rises and things like that. As much as there might be some cost savings, there are also, as technology comes, and I believe we are in a very advanced industry—we do have GPS tracking, we do have 24 hours, we do have query channels which ring up people to confirm it. To give you an indication, on the Gold Coast we sit at about 10 per cent of no jobs. That means that when the driver actually gets there, there is no customer. My costs are 10 per cent running around looking for nothing.

Mr MOLHOEK: Why is that? Why is it so high? Mr SMITH: It is human nature. Mr MOLHOEK: Is it because another cab turns up ahead of you? Mr Smith: They find another cab. In Brisbane they will book both cab companies and it is

whoever turns up first. Mr MOLHOEK: The fact that that is happening, isn’t that an indication of the frustration that

users have had with services? They sort of hedge their bets and feel that they need to book both services.

Mr Smith: I think they are time conscious and they want the first available one. CHAIR: It is a change in attitude in society. Mr MOLHOEK: I have to say that I have had many experiences personally, both in Brisbane

and on the coast, where I have booked a cab and been waiting and waiting and waiting and they have sent me the message to say it will be five minutes and 20 minutes later there is still no cab. I do not know that there has been enough acknowledgement within some of the discussion around the reliability of the information services and the response.



Mr Smith: That would be a great question to ask Gordana Blazevic. I am an operator. I pay the fee. I raise issues, that are costing me 10 per cent, of inefficiencies. Whether the call centre acknowledges that, that is for them to decide.

Mr MOLHOEK: I have raised some of those questions with them and the response I have received has been a very defensive response rather than trying to actually look at the nub of the issue and the attitude of what is going on. We have just been very stonewalled.

CHAIR: We are actually meeting with Gordana tomorrow. Mr MOLHOEK: I think, if you talk to a lot of business customers, that is why some of them

have migrated to the simpler technology. It has been a vote of frustration. CHAIR: You are making statements rather than asking questions. The member for Redlands

has a question. Mr McEACHAN: It is probably a bit of both, a bit of a statement and a question. Call me a cynic,

but I am concerned that we will not get this legislation change made adequate and passed in the time frame. Say for argument’s sake that does not happen, my concern is, and it is something that I share with you for maybe some feedback, that it has been indicated through the course of today in both Cairns and Townsville that hardship money is of the utmost priority. What would the industry think of looking at some provision in our recommendations of hardship money being made available as a matter of priority and not necessarily tied to the passing of the bill?

Mr Smith: I think it is essential because if we are calling this a transition model, which we still don’t know what we are transitioning too, then I need to be compensated for that transition at the moment.

Mr McEACHAN: And the transition has been going since April 2014. Mr Smith: That’s right. In my personal experience I have been fighting this for two and a half

years. I need something—not compensation, because compensation needs to take time to work out exactly what the government does. I need something to get me through until the CTP, the security cameras and everything else is tidied up. I need that now.

Mr McEACHAN: Otherwise you are not going to be around. Mr Smith: Not only do I need it and my owners need it, as an operator I need it. Mr COSTIGAN: Can I ask how long you and your wife Linda have been in the taxi game in this

city? Mr McNamara: We have two licences. We bought our first one in 1996 so that is 20 years this

year. Mr COSTIGAN: I note your concerns regarding safety. I am sure that strikes a chord with all

members of the committee here today. I asked this question at the Cairns hearing this morning: is Uber or an Uber like competitor in the market in Townsville right now?

Mr McNamara: Not that I am aware of. There are rogue rideshare operators. Mr COSTIGAN: There are some cowboys out there in that space of ridesharing. You would go

so far as to say that, would that be correct? Mr McNamara: Yes. I am not sure of the numbers but there are operators out there. CHAIR: To me, ridesharing is actually, ‘Come on, Rob, I’m going down the road. Do you want

to come down with me’, not an illegal taxi operation. Mr Savin: To a certain extent they are exploiting the fact that DTMR now cannot enforce any

rules. CHAIR: It is Rafferty’s Rules. Mr Savin: Yes. Mr McNamara: There is no safety check, no licence check for those guys. Mr Smith: What it has actually done is it has brought them out from the shadows. Now they

think, with impunity, ‘I can do this.’ Mr COSTIGAN: Before they were terrified, now they are happy to come out from behind the

bushes. Mr Smith: They actually pick up on taxi ranks.



Mr POWER: In Palmer Street or in Surfers Paradise, if a rank is quiet they will cruise up and just take somebody off the top of the rank and say, ‘I can give you a lift home.’ Do they put a cover on how they do it?

Mr Smith: Our drivers will sit there for an hour or two to get to the top of a rank. They will see a Uber car that has been cruising around go and park across the road and they will actually see the customer check the price of the taxi, walk across, check the price and then obviously the Uber driver says, ‘Well, what did the taxi say?’ $60 or $40 or $30. ‘I will do it for $20 cash.’

Mr POWER: That fare has no GPS. Mr Smith: It has nothing. Mr POWER: There are none of the theoretical safeguards of a credit card transaction and GPS

tracking. Mr Smith: Nothing. Mr Savin: And that goes also again to the safety of the driver taking this unknown person

without any cameras, without any security, and that puts that driver at risk for that $20 cashie. Mr McNamara: Which brings us back to that point that was raised earlier where if there is an

identifying registration for a rideshare—taxis have T and everyone knows that T is for taxi—an R for rideshare, that would eliminate those people out of the market as well because compliance officers would at least have somewhere to start identifying who the rogues are and who the authorised operators are.

Mr COSTIGAN: One final remark, I want to say, Mr McNamara, that I am the only North Queenslander on this committee. I just want to say thank you to you and your fellow drivers in the city with the work that you have done over many, many years looking after the little old lady, getting her groceries in the door. There is a lot of stuff that does not get reported because it does not sell newspapers. I can say that because I worked for the paper here in this town. Thank you for what you do particularly, also, for the veteran community in a city like Townsville—the garrison city of Townsville—and for kids with special needs, the disabled and so forth. On behalf of the committee, but from a parochial point of view, thank you for what you and your colleagues do in this community, it is appreciated.

Mr McNamara: And on behalf of Townsville Taxis. CHAIR: I have also said on the record at each hearing, and we are not trying to one-up each

other here, that it is the firm view of this committee, I am fairly sure, that we would like to thank the taxi industry for playing above the rules the whole time and not lowering to the lowest standards. We have heard clearly that taxi drivers are not going to turn up in shorts and thongs, you are going to wear your uniforms and have that professional attitude that you have always had and that is appreciated.

Mr Smith: Chair, the only thing I would like to finish with, and I think I heard you say it the other day, is this decision needs to be above party politics. It does.

CHAIR: We are from both sides here. Mr Smith: Unfortunately the taxi industry is battle weary. We are down on our knees and we

need the politicians that we have elected in Queensland to stand up for Queensland small businesses.

CHAIR: Thank you for that. Thank you to everyone. We appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedules to provide evidence. We are due to report on the bill by 1 November. We will be holding several more meetings, as we discussed, over the next few days. I now declare this public hearing closed.

Committee adjourned at 6.26 pm

transportation and utilities committee · 2016-10-31 · 2016 . townsville - 1 - 19 oct 2016 ....

Documents