From: Adam Johnston [ajohnston@digisol.com.au]
Sent: Monday, 14 May, 2001 13:26
To: David MASON
Subject: Sorry, I sent you the draft earlier, not the final copy - here it is

Adam Johnston

35 Woolrych Crescent,

Davidson NSW 2005,

Phone: 9402 -- 0539,

Fax: 9402 -- 0540,

E-mail: ajohnston@digisol.com.au,

8 May 2001

Disability Rights Unit,

Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission,

Wheelchair Accessible Taxi Inquiry,

GPO Box 5218,

Sydney 1042

Dear Sir,

I have been writing about issues similar to those covered in your terms of reference since 1996. My experience brings me to the conclusion that one has to be pragmatic, when considering what further reforms can be made in taxi transport for people with disabilities. It is also my view that arguing from the position of an individual's rights is erroneous.

Personally, I get around the problem of response times by always making my bookings privately with the same taxi driver. We have done this for at least the past seven years. This has been despite various abortive attempts by the Taxi Council and Department of Transport to prevent drivers using personal mobile phones. Private arrangements are also generally preferred by customers because of unfortunate experiences with the inefficiencies of radio room bookings. The radio bookings continue to be slow and unreliable.

While I recognise that the "private bookings" option will not be available to all taxi travellers, it also shows the impractical nature of trying to monitor an enforcement policy. Attempts to ban drivers and passengers from making private arrangements completely failed. A similar fate would await attempts to try and enforce quotas on the number of "wheelchair bookings" that drivers were expected to take. I understand that this has been tried before and fell into disuse, probably because of the sheer manpower and infrastructure requirements this would demand from the State Department of Transport.

Equally, I cautioned the NSW Disability Council in a 1998 submission that:

"Setting quotas and constructing an enforcement mechanism may be deemed uncompetitive and a restraint on trade. For example, a driver may argue that quotas placed on his contract with an operator will 'tend to eliminate or stifle competition'. This could well bring the quota proposition into conflict with competition policy in Australia. It may be one reason why licences 'only specify that priority (my italics) be given to (disabled) people'... It might be necessary to seek an exemption for WAT taxis from competition policy. Further advice should be sought from the ACCC" (1)

I am unaware of any further examination of this question. However, to pick up on my earlier point, if we are serious about improving taxi services, we should look beyond the Commission's own legislative framework. Again, arguing solely on the basis of perceived "rights" is unlikely to win many arguments. Any propositions put to Government need to draw on a range of policy perspectives and make a case that cannot be too easily "pigeon-holed" as a niche concern.

This was something I was very conscious of when lobbying the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. My submission to their inquiry regarding concessions (which argued for reciprocity of transport concessions throughout the States and Territories) deliberately avoided a "rights" based approach. I concentrated on positive GDP and social outcomes, framing the word "disability" in terms of its constitutional usage. This was cited approvingly by the Committee in their final report (2). In my opinion, it was partly the novelty of this approach that attracted the Committee's attention, as well as its support for reciprocity. A copy of my submission is enclosed for your information, and I strongly recommend the adoption of a similar strategy for success.

Please refer to my submission to the NSW Disability Council, for further details on your specific "issues for comment". As stated earlier, the matters covered then and now are practically indistinguishable. In particular, note the heading "How many WATs" on Page 2. Questions of deployment and numbers of special taxis will need to include a financially realistic appraisal of cost and benefit, which is credible politically.

Also, when considering the matter of response times, do pause to look at it from a driver's perspective. I attempt to do this under the heading "Being fair to drivers", beginning on Page 3. It is important to remember that in what we request, we cannot put drivers in an untenable legal position, where they are pressured to speed.

Finally, I think much can be done to improve efficiency and economic costs by reforming the legal structure of the taxi industry and the Passenger Transport Act. As this relates to the provision of accessible taxis (and taxis in general) please see the Disability Council submission and the heading "Reforming the taxi industry's legal framework" on Page 4.

On a related matter, though one not strictly mentioned in your terms of reference, I should like to mention the national reciprocity arrangements which I had a hand in creating. All seems to be working well, as it is relatively easy to apply to your state Transport Department for interstate taxi travel subsidy dockets. However, it still seems a labour-intensive and bureaucratic process. Two important reforms the Commission may consider under the heading of improved efficiency, is the introduction of a smart card, as well as the design of a truly national docket.

A national docket would be acceptable in any State or Territory. The current interstate dockets have numbers nominating a specific state in which they were issued and an equally specific state in which they can be handed to taxi driver's. Otherwise, they are invalid. While I recognise security and accountability arguments may have influenced the design, it is still to be wondered whether a single nationwide transport concession docket would not have had greater utility. I certainly think so, as it would mean a reduction in "red tape" for the concession recipients. A smart card may be the vehicle for achieving the truly national subsidy docket (in the form of a smart card). This "smart card option" is discussed briefly, on Page 6 of my submission to the NSW Disability Council.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Adam Johnston

END NOTES

1. Letter to Ben Folino (Policy Officer, NSW Disability Council) from Adam Johnston, dated 25 July 1998, p.4 (see attachments)

2. See, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family & Community Affairs, Concessions: Who Benefits?, October 1997, p.90