Broad overview of responses to the Draft Report

Broad overview of responses to the Draft Report

Responses to the Draft Report were wide-ranging. However, some overall features of the response were:

There was widespread agreement that service outcomes in the taxi industry need to improve. While some industry participants argued that concerns about service standards have been exaggerated (including by the inquiry), almost all submissions and responses to the inquiry from outside the industry continued to express significant concerns about service-related matters, including poor driver quality, unsatisfactory performance by taxi booking services, problems with taxi availability during peak times or in particular locations, and accessibility and services provided to people with a disability.

Community and business organisations representing the industry’s customers strongly endorsed the Draft Report’s focus on improving service quality and delivery. For example, the joint submission of the Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI), the Victorian Tourism Industry Council (VTIC) and the Victorian Events Industry Council (VEIC) stated that “the focus of these [inquiry] reforms must ultimately be on improving the consumer experience through the provision of a safe, professional, reliable and sustainable taxi service”.¹⁸

The need to improve customer outcomes from the taxi industry was acknowledged by the Victorian Taxi Association (VTA) and Taxi Industry Stakeholders Victoria (TISV). While questioning whether service standards and performance are as poor as the inquiry reported, the VTA stated it is committed “to meaningful and sensible reform of the Victorian taxi industry – based on improving service delivery outcomes for taxi customers”.¹⁹ TISV also “acknowledges that significant reforms are needed for the taxi industry”.²⁰ Similarly, another industry participant, Taxi Link Pty Ltd, stated “the industry recognises that reform is needed to deliver a better service to the public and provide for a sustainable taxi industry for all stakeholders”.²¹

While there was broad agreement on the need for some reform, there was a clear divide in responses to the draft recommendations between the investment interests of taxi licence holders and operators (who focused largely on opposing the proposed changes to licensing and driver remuneration), and responses from community groups, business organisations and local councils (who either supported the broad direction of the reform package or endorsed specific proposals relating to their interests).

The most contentious areas were the inquiry’s proposed changes to taxi and hire car licensing and the new Driver Agreement. These recommendations were opposed by around 60 per cent of online responses, with the strongest opposition coming from those with investment interests in the taxi industry. The majority of submissions from industry participants were opposed to the inquiry’s recommendations regarding taxi licensing and, to a slightly lesser extent, the proposed 60/40 ‘split’ of the fare box between drivers and operators. Many industry submissions commented only on the taxi licensing recommendations: approximately one quarter of online submissions that commented on these recommendations did not comment on any other recommendation. This appears to reflect the high proportion of metropolitan Melbourne taxi licences that are owned by individuals who assign them and have no active role in the delivery of taxi services.

There was a clear correlation between responses on less restrictive taxi licensing (draft Recommendation 1.1) and increasing driver remuneration (draft Recommendation 6.14): support for one was almost invariably associated with support for the other; and opposition to one was overwhelmingly associated with opposition to the other. However, some industry participants (including TISV) gave qualified support to the proposed mandatory 60/40 fare box split, while noting that it must be affordable on an industry-wide basis.

There was strong support from outside the industry for lifting the status, income and working conditions of drivers, with many seeing this as being directly related to service quality and, in some instances, as a matter of ‘fairness’.

Opposition to the inquiry’s proposed licensing reforms centred around concerns that opening up entry would ‘flood’ an already ‘full market’ (leading to a decrease in taxi occupancy, higher consumer costs and lower driver incomes) and cause financial problems for licence holders. While some of those opposed to the inquiry’s approach were opposed to any new issue of taxi licences, others argued that additional licences should be issued according to demand using appropriate ‘triggers’ to maintain an adequate, but not excessive, supply of taxis. However, there was general agreement from taxi operators that assignment prices are at unsustainable levels and adversely impacting the industry’s performance.

The views of drivers, as a homogenous group, were less readily identifiable in formal responses compared to licence owners. Drivers mostly tended to support a less restrictive approach to licensing, seeing the opportunities and benefits in less costly licences, lower assignment prices and, not surprisingly, increased remuneration through the proposed 60/40 fare box split. However, some drivers supporting the remuneration proposal opposed less restrictive issuing of licences, due to concerns about a possible high level of new entrants to the market and the consequences for their takings. The Australian Taxi Drivers Association (ATDA) strongly endorsed reforms aimed at improving driver remuneration and making non-assignable licences available at a set price, noting that “the professionalism and commitment to service will be enhanced by an increased number of taxis being driven by their owner[s]”.²²

While having reservations about some elements of the inquiry’s proposals, submissions generally supported improved driver training, seeing this as critical to lifting driver quality and service standards.

Overall, the bulk of the 145 recommendations were supported in the majority of those submissions that commented on them: 120 of the 145 recommendations were supported by two-thirds or more of the online submissions that commented on them. Some submissions supported the entire reform package.

1. 
   Broad conclusions from responses to the Draft Report
   

Agreement across industry and other stakeholder groupings was greatest around those recommendations relating to vehicle standards, driver training and customer safety, and accessibility of services to customers with a disability.

There were also differences of opinion around the extent, intent or wording of a number of the draft recommendations, with suggestions made for additions and amendments. Details about responses to specific draft recommendations are set out in the following chapters.
PART A – INCREASING AND IMPROVING SUPPLY