Taxi industry inquiry
Issues raised in submissions
Download 1.67 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Driver training and experience
- Driver remuneration and working conditions
- Properly insured taxis
Issues raised in submissionsWhile there was considerable support for the notion that driver quality should be improved, there were mixed views about how best to achieve this. Many in the industry welcomed improvements in driver training, but were less supportive of measures aimed at increasing driver remuneration. Outside the industry, a number of submissions expressed disappointment that the inquiry chose not to recommend drivers becoming employees, seeing this as the only certain path to improving drivers’ incomes and working conditions.
Nearly all submissions that commented on the inquiry’s driver training proposals were supportive. A large proportion of licence holders who responded considered that driver training is the only major reform that should be pursued. Most of these licence holders believed that, if driver training is addressed, very little else needs to be done. There was general agreement that an independent exam and, in particular, testing for greater local knowledge would lift driver quality. A number of submissions sought clarity and greater detail about how the new independent exam might work. Some suggested moving away from existing RTOs to alternative training providers, such as TAFE institutes, or making training modules available online. There were also suggestions to make the training more flexible, including allowing drivers to choose the modules they felt they needed to undertake to gain the required competencies. While there was strong endorsement of the requirement for driver applicants to have held a Victorian Driver Licence for 12 months, a number of industry respondents including the VTA and TISV felt the period was too long in light of the proposed introduction of the independent exam. Others commented that the different training requirements for country taxi drivers and PBO drivers should not be retained. There was general agreement on the inquiry’s recommendations for improvements to training related to providing services to customers with a disability. However, VCOSS felt these recommendations should go further: While we support the thrust of this recommendation, we would extend it to include that people with disabilities should be involved not only in designing training materials but also in delivering the training itself. Further, given that concern about the extent of disability awareness among current drivers, there should be provision for ongoing training and assessment of drivers, not merely the instruction of new entrants. Finally, disability awareness is only one component of understanding the service needs of diverse groups in the community, and awareness training should also encompass the needs of others in the community, including seniors, multicultural communities and children.121 Taxi users with a disability provided the inquiry with feedback on specific competencies and skills where improvements are needed to lift service standards. These users and their advocates noted that disability awareness levels should be strengthened among conventional (non-WAT) taxi drivers, as many people with a disability use conventional taxis, including people with vision and hearing impairments, frail elderly people, deaf-blind users and people with ambulant disabilities. Opinion was divided on the need to continue the subsidy for WAT training in metropolitan Melbourne. Generally, taxi industry participants wanted to retain the subsidy, while customers with a disability and their representatives agreed that the subsidy is unnecessary given the number of incentives to provide a WAT service. There was also a mixed response to the inquiry’s proposal to allow for mentoring of new drivers. Many felt this would reduce a driver’s ability to take passengers, as one seat will be taken up with the mentor; others saw merit in the idea. Some operators and NSPs advised that they already provided this type on training in-house. For example, Frankston Taxis reported using ‘in car training’ as part of its driver training program as a way of “giving the trainees a real life environment of dealing with clients, on-road conditions etc”.122
While the inquiry received a large number of submissions and comments supporting its proposals to increase the remuneration of drivers, many industry respondents were very strongly opposed to such a move, arguing that it would be beyond the current capacity of the industry to afford and would force many operators out of business. Those objecting to the proposed move to a 60/40 revenue split generally cited affordability as their main concern, although there were also comments from several operators that drivers are ‘happy’ with the current 50/50 split. For example, one anonymous operator reported having had “no negative feedback from drivers regarding their bailment terms and conditions”.123 Many of those opposed to these recommendations claimed that the resultant drop in operator revenue would equate to a 20 per cent loss (from 50 per cent of takings to 40 per cent), making many businesses unviable. The alternative proposal for fixed hourly rates for peak and off-peak times was seen by some industry participants to be even more unattainable than changing the fare box split.
Others commented that this recommendation will lead to operators driving more often, ‘taking work away from drivers’: If owners were forced to pay these sort of hourly rates they would either drive themselves or leave it off the road.125 If this comes in, my taxi will have 1 driver, Me.126 Some submissions questioned whether the 60/40 split could be enforced and whether a mandatory Driver Agreement backed by a dispute resolution process would work. In contrast, others considered that improving driver remuneration is critical. For example, the Australian Taxi Drivers Association wanted the inquiry to push further for employment status for drivers and for paid leave and superannuation for full time drivers. The Federation of Community Legal Centres suggested that the TSC should be charged with monitoring the welfare of drivers and upholding their legal rights. In a report attached to its submission, the Federation noted: The use of bailment in the industry leads to widespread uncertainty as to taxi drivers’ rights and entitlements. …. Some taxi operators take advantage of this uncertainty in order to deprive drivers of their legislated right to WorkCover insurance. The lack of job security afforded by bailment agreements means that, even when drivers understand their entitlements, they are unlikely to pursue them for fear that operators will give ‘their’ shifts to other drivers.127 On the matter of coverage of drivers by workers compensation, accident compensation and OH&S legislation, a small number of operators argued that the inquiry’s recommendations were not necessary as drivers are not employees. Mostly, these operators considered that as drivers are bailees, they should be responsible for their own occupational health and safety and insurance. However, there appears to be widespread confusion within the industry about driver and operator rights and responsibilities in relation to these matters. WorkSafe told the inquiry that it has worked with the VTD to help industry participants to understand their rights and obligations. It noted that drivers employed as bailees are entitled to accident compensation insurance, which should be provided by the person or business supplying the taxi. WorkSafe supported the draft recommendations that aim to clarify this position in both the Driver Agreement and in legislation. The issue of OH&S coverage in terms of its treatment of bailee arrangements was not seen as straightforward. WorkSafe noted that the Victorian Government has indicated that Victoria will not adopt the national model of workplace health and safety laws in their current form. The Government still supports the principle of national harmonisation of health and safety laws (and will continue to work towards best practice legislation) and WorkSafe continues to enforce Victoria's existing OH&S laws. WorkSafe told the inquiry that it believes bailee drivers are covered by Victorian OH&S legislation. However, it acknowledges that there is some uncertainty about the application of the general duties under the OH&S Act to bailment arrangements. WorkSafe stated that the key issue is not whether there is a gap in the coverage of taxi drivers for OHS purposes, but rather whether the various safety duties apply in particular situations. WorkSafe suggested these matters would be better addressed through working with the relevant agencies to clarify how drivers can be protected by existing legislation and through the publication of guidance materials to raise awareness of the OH&S rights and responsibilities of parties in the taxi industry. VECCI noted that for many businesses, catching a taxi is often a requirement for their employees and that “assurances around the provision of a safe working environment for taxi drivers would also have a positive impact on the safety of passengers”.128
There was overwhelming support for requiring permit holders to maintain a third party property insurance policy. However, some operators raised the issue that such insurance is unprocurable for them. Others felt that drivers should be liable for the excess payment; otherwise, they will have no incentive to drive safely. Others commented that the current levels of excess applied to the industry – often several thousand dollars – represent an untenably large impost on poorly paid drivers and that there are sufficiently potent discouragements in place to deter driving recklessly (including a tarnished reputation in the industry and having no income while the vehicle is off-road being repaired). There was some concern that the recommendation did not go far enough and that compulsory insurance should be required also to cover damage to the permit holder’s taxi and that drivers should have the right to question repair quotes if they appear unreasonably high.
|