Adam Johnston

35 Woolrych Crescent,

Davidson NSW 2085

Phone: 9402 -- 0539,

Fax: 9402 -- 0540,

1st July 2001

Mr David Mason,

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,

Dear David,

Re: Taxi Inquiry -- Supplementary Submission

Recently, your colleague Rob Lake made a presentation before a meeting of the Northern Sydney Transport Regional Issues Group (TRIG), regarding your current inquiry. His comments and discussion of the terms of reference have prompted me to make this further submission.

Firstly, please find attached a copy of my 1998 submission to the Attorney General's Department regarding the Draft Standards for Accessible Transport. Given my comments therein, it does not surprise me that the standards are not yet in force. Specifically, it has always been my view that the 20 year plan is something of a political nonsense. As explained to Mr Duggan (Advisor to the Attorney General's Department), two decades represents almost 7 Federal electoral terms and 5 State electoral terms. This is to say nothing of the changes in technology and with it, the needs of disabled people, in that time. Therefore, please note that one of my principal recommendations to Mr Duggan was to dispose of the 20 year plan.

You might say this is heresy, but given that the Standards are currently in limbo anyway, this could be the perfect time to review strategy. Again, referring to my submission to Mr Duggan, you will note that I spend some time discussing possible implementation of smart card technology. Smart cards would be designed to replace the current paper voucher/docket book subsidy scheme. As discussed, when I appeared before the House Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs (to lobby for the interstate travel concession reciprocity, which has now been achieved), representatives of the Health Insurance Commission were also giving evidence before the Parliament. They were discussing the use of smart card technology and indicating that it had advantages in terms of both speed and efficiency, as well as a capacity to more readily detect fraud. In my opinion, it is time that the taxi subsidy scheme was so reformed. It is slow and paper intensive; in the modern day it should not take weeks for a taxi driver to be paid a part fare. If we are seen to address this problem, we may do a lot to alleviate the current shortage of Wheelchair Accessible Taxi (WAT) drivers, as well as encouraging the current stock of drivers to accept more wheelchair work.

A smart card would also facilitate interstate reciprocity, so that the agreement reached could be more readily implemented in practice. On a recent trip to Melbourne, I discovered that while the NSW Transport Department could provide me with dockets suitable for use in Victoria, this was news to Victorian taxi drivers. They operated a hybrid paper voucher and an ID card transport subsidy scheme. As I only had dockets which they did not recognise, they were understandably unwilling to accept dockets issued by another jurisdiction. Thankfully, I was provided with receipts which could then be forwarded to the NSW Department for reimbursement. This has been done and I have received all monies owing; nonetheless, this was not the way the system was supposed to work. A national smart card would alleviate these misunderstandings.

Finally, I cannot emphasise enough my concern about the universal taxi option. You will note from the tenor of my submission to Mr Duggan, my scepticism about the value of setting a universal accessibility standard. My fear is that it will only provide a political excuse for the removal of funding from parallel services. The international evidence cited in the Attorney General's Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) convinced me of the exact opposite to what is apparently proposed for Australia. It was claimed that consultations in Australia indicated that disabled people would be willing to patronise mainstream public transport, if it was made accessible. Mr Duggan's RIS appeared to accept this conclusion as fact, in the face of the international evidence, which strongly suggested the exact opposite. Therefore, I am a strong advocate for the retention and expansion of parallel services. Please refer to my submission to Mr Duggan for full details and reasons.

As a postscript to this submission, can I also add some comments regarding the Australian Transport Council (ATC) and the Standing Committee on Transport (SCoT). It is my understanding from Mr Lake that the ATC is a purely Ministerial body, inviting no representation from peak bodies or any other interested parties. While there is apparently greater access to the SCoT, and indirect access to government via the Human Rights Commission (you are a body under the responsibility of the Attorney General's Department), an argument can be made for widening the number of voices heard by ministerial councils. I have noted their increased use over recent years, as the fiscal and political power imbalance between the States and the Commonwealth becomes all the more apparent. While I do not take issue with the vertical fiscal imbalance (and indeed, approve of Federal authority when it can advance an issue like national subsidy scheme reciprocity), the ministerial councils should have more open and accountable processes. This could and should involve inviting peak bodies (or interested parties) to make submissions directly to these council meetings, before the Ministers consider a particular issue.

Please note that my computer uses Microsoft Works, however, I am aware that a many people have difficulty with this format. Therefore, the submission to Mr Duggan is also attached in Microsoft Word format.

Yours sincerely,

A Johnston

Adam Johnston