Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I have some difficulty with some parts of the bill and I think I made that clear this morning. I will touch briefly on those issues at this stage and when we move into another stage I will expand on them. It is very clear that we all want an efficient and effective taxi service in this State. I do not think that anybody can argue with that. We want a service that provides safety not only to passengers, the clients of these taxis, but we also want a service that provides safety to the drivers of these vehicles. We also want contemporary vehicles. I think that is clear. We want a vehicle that is reliable, safe and looks good as well.

About two years ago I was in Taiwan where one of the things that stands out is the taxi service. There are probably more taxis on the roads there than other vehicles, but interestingly - and I think I have the period right - no taxi can be any older than three or five years. There are also conditions relating to drivers on how they must present themselves. They are all decked out in white gloves and are very well dressed with the white covers over the seats. It was a pleasure to see that and you felt comfortable -

Ms Forrest - Are you suggesting that we move down that path here, white gloves and all?

Mr DEAN - It would be a good way to go, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, as I will mention in a moment, the money that taxi drivers and the operators make here is fairly meagre and perhaps many of them do not have the finance behind them to do that.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Through you, Madam President - are the taxis privately owned or are they a company-type of organisation or government run?

Mr DEAN - I cannot answer that; I did not go into that other than to talk to a taxi driver at some length who was able to give us a lot of information. They were really wonderful in that regard. The cleanliness of the taxi is the thing that stood out. I happened to be there with a member from the lower House. He also remarked on the condition of the taxis there and the safety that you felt in riding in one of their taxis.

The taxi driver is a very important person and the taxi -

Mr Wing - For political information.

Mr DEAN - You are right, political information.

Normally that is the first experience for many tourists, visitors and business people coming into this State. Often their first experience is what they get from a taxi and the information that they get from the taxi driver. It is important that we have a very good service in that regard.

Can they provide a similar service in this State? Their viability is questioned. It is interesting that I received this information when I spoke to a number of taxi drivers and the Taxi Industry Association - I might add the Taxi Industry Association in this State say they represent about 80 to 90 per cent of the taxis. They say that their viability is questioned. It came out in the briefing this morning and I thank the members for that briefing. It was certainly a well-presented briefing and answered a lot of issues an so on. Their concern is that the Transport Commission or the State, in this instance, are more concerned about regulating and getting financial benefits from licences, rather than having some emphasis in relation to viability of taxis moving forward in this State. That was indicated this morning, I think, that really the State or the Transport Commission are not really interested in the viability side of things. That is up to the operators. That is up to the taxi people themselves, to ensure that they are viable moving forward. I think it is a bit tough. They can be viable, provided their conditions are reasonable in all the circumstances. They need the right conditions to be viable.

I think my advice is right that in about 1996 and 1997, DIER were talking about a buy-back of some taxi licences as there were too many. Again, on advice given to me, this was as a result of the many licences being issued, as I understand, following the Tasman Bridge collapse. At the time of the Tasman Bridge collapse, from my advice - and I can see the shaking of heads over here - there were a number of taxi licences issued.

Ms Thorp - That was 34 years ago.

Mr DEAN - It would seem that my advice may well be wrong, but that is the advice I was given.

The member for Launceston has already mentioned the issue and concerns that I also have in relation to clause 23 of this bill, making sure that every year there is a 5 per cent increase in the owner-operator licences and the perpetual licences in an area, irrespective of whether they are needed or not. I am conscious of the explanation given to us this morning. In other words, if it is deemed that there are too many taxi operators out there, then those licences may not be sold, they will remain there and at the end of that period will be torn up. The process will then start again for the following year. I understand all of that, but it would seem to me, on the advice that I was given, that taxi drivers are currently struggling. In fact, when you start to look at some of the issues surrounding this and one taxi operator said to me -

Mr Parkinson - The drivers or the licence owners?

Mr DEAN - This is one of the owners involved in an organisation which owns a number of taxis. What they said was, 'A business person does not each year just put on extra staff.' They do not, every year, put on extra staff in their business. What they do is assess the need for extra staff and look at their sales or look at the business, whether or not they are currently able to provide the services and if there is a need, they put on more staff. They are saying the same sort of thing should apply to taxi licences. They gave Metro as another example. Do Metro simply stick on extra buses every year? No, they do not. But they would if there was demand for those further services. These are some of the analogies and examples that they provided to me at the time and I suppose they are reasonable analogies.

What does a taxi driver earn today? What do they work for? On my advice again, the taxi driver is currently earning about $10 an hour. That is the advice given to me, about $10 an hour.

Ms Thorp - It depends how many hours they drive.

Mr DEAN - That is the next question. The member for Rumney has cut me off because it I was going to say that for some of these taxi drivers to make a living, I am told they are working 50 to 60 hours per week.

Ms Thorp - It is not uncommon.

Mr DEAN - No, but should they have to? The average person works about 38 hours a week. That is the standard figure, 40 hours a week. Taxi drivers, in many instances work in a dangerous environment and I do not think some people would really understand the dangers that they are confronted with from time to time. If you talk to taxi drivers who have been operating, they can all give you examples of dangerous situations that they have been placed in. There are not too many who cannot give you that. Taxi drivers are having to work those long hours for low income. I am told that the average taxi driver can earn about $25 000 a year, which is a fairly small sum when you look at what other people earn. A basic salary of $25 000 is not a great deal of money. They also say that they have to pay GST out of that. I am told - and I stand to be corrected here - that taxi drivers have to have an ABN, which is not common for a lot of other workers.

Ms Forrest - Businesses do.

Mr DEAN - Yes, businesses do but drivers, I am told, need an ABN.

Mr Parkinson - That is true, but I take it you're talking about the drivers who are employed?

Mr DEAN - That is right. They earn a small amount of money and out of that they still have to pay GST.

Mr Parkinson - Or ripped off, whichever way you want to talk about it.

Mr DEAN - I am told that to go through all the training and do all those things you have to do to finally get a licence to drive a cab costs about $500 in total.

Ms Thorp - It couldn't be behind the argument you were given that those already in the game want to keep other people out?

Mr DEAN - I do not know whether that is happening or not, I am simply relating the advice I have been provided by operators and the Taxi Industry Association. That is the information that I am conveying here today.

There are many costs associated with taxis. I am trying to identify the position that taxis are confronted with. They want a reasonable deal. They want to provide a good service to the people who want to use taxis. There may well be some out there who are there for other reasons, feathering their own nest and so on, but predominantly they want to provide a good service and receive reasonable remuneration.

I am told that some of the other costs that taxi operators, and owner-drivers in some instances, are confronted with are as follows. They have their taxi purchase. Fuel costs are increasing incredibly quickly, as we all know. One operator says that he has four cabs and his March quarter bill in 2007 matched with his March quarter bill in 2008 saw a fuel increase of about $6 000. There may well have been, as he said, some additional kilometres travelled in those two March periods, but he said that identifies the significant increase in his fuel costs in the running of his taxis. They have wear and tear on their taxis. They have six-monthly checks on the taxis and, as I understand it, those six-monthly checks cost about $60 each time. There is also a 10 000-kilometre accreditation check. I understand that costs about $120. Under this bill that will increase to about $585 for Launceston - I am talking about Launceston with these figures. The officers say this is all about is employing other transport officers to go out and check up on them. They say that is where some of those costs will go. We were told this morning in the briefing that there would be additional transport officers employed as a result of this bill. They say they are making a contribution towards a person coming to check up on them, to inspect them and their vehicles and make sure they are doing the right thing.

There are a lot of costs that the taxi operators and drivers are confronted with. It is not all beer and skittles. It is not a business where they can simply print their own money. It is not like that at all. As I said, my advice comes from the Taxi Industry Association and it comes from a number of people working in the business.

There was some discussion about the WATs and the fact that they need these vehicles and they need to be readily available to people. But they say that there are many instances of those taxis, Madam President, being used for taxi purposes to an extent whereby some of those vehicles are neglecting their purpose, the conveying of people with disabilities.

Also I did raise in the briefing this morning whether you can multi-hire vehicles. You cannot, I was advised this morning. I accept that. If it were happening it would be an illegal activity. Any passenger fares, of course, can be agreed amongst the people using the taxi but the fare to be paid to the operator is what is on the meter.

The other issue is the additional licences that will be made available under this bill each year. They say that there will be people out there who are in retirement mode who will probably want to buy a taxi licence. Those people will be able to work just the hours that they want to work, pick the eyes out of the prime times to work. In other words, they may be working Friday afternoons, Wednesday afternoons, Thursday afternoons perhaps, and at times when there are other activities occurring, but not at any other time. Then it would still come back on to other businesses to try to pick up those other periods when nobody wants to work, that is, the early hours of a Saturday morning and Sunday morning in particular. They are saying that they will be left with that sort of work whereas others, with these additional licences that will be handed out, will be picking the eyes out of those good times. That is not something they are happy about. They say they want to provide a good service at all times.

George Street in Launceston was mentioned as a classic example of this by the member for Rosevears. Some would remember that in late 1999 or 2000 George Street was going through a horrendous time with violent antisocial activity in Launceston. I can speak on this because I happened to be the Commander of Police who arrived there right at that time. The taxi drivers would not operate from George Street after a certain time on a Friday or Saturday night. They were avoiding George Street because of the brawls, the antisocial behaviour and attacks on their cabs, and because the main clients they were picking up at that hour of the morning were aggressive drunks, et cetera. That was one of the causes of the problems in George Street at the time. There were not enough taxis and therefore these people were hanging around at all hours of the night trying to get transport out of the area, so that was creating problems.

If this bill is accepted in the way it is, I do not see how this new system is going to satisfy all those issues. That is my concern and the concern of some of the operators and drivers.

The other area that they mentioned to me - and I did not have time to put it this morning, but it was raised by another member - was the zones and the periods within which taxis will be able to operate. One operator asked me what happens when they pick up a legitimate fare in Launceston, take that fare to Cressy or Longford and find there is a fare at Cressy or Longford wanting a trip back to, say, Hadspen or Westbury. They cannot, as they understand this bill, pick that person up. They have to drive past that person and continue back to Launceston. They cannot pick up a fare out of their location and then drop that person off out of their location. So if that is not right, I would like some clarification on it.

Ms Forrest - A way around it is to ask them to take them to the location they've come from and then ask to be dropped off on the way because they've had enough.

Mr DEAN - That is another thing they raised, and if it is right that they can do that, I would like to know. My understanding of the bill is that they cannot.

But as they said, they will often pick up a fare, as the member for Murchison has said, who may ride for a short time and then they change their mind and say, 'Look, I don't want to go there, I want to go somewhere else'. So, technically, are these drivers committing offences in those circumstances or, as one of them said, 'Do we kidnap the passenger and take them back to our area and drop them off in our zone?'

Ms Forrest - Then they'd have to pay to take them back to where they want to go again.

Mr DEAN - It does happen, Madam President. People might say that there is only a remote chance of that happening but it does happen, and if you talk to taxi drivers they will tell you that they frequently will pick up a passenger, particularly late at night and particularly when they are affected by alcohol, who will change their mind on where they want to go after they have gotten into the taxi. It is not an uncommon thing at all. So there are some issues out there that need to be sorted through and settled as a result of this.

Taxi drivers say they generally accept this bill. They do not have a difficulty with the bill but there are those two or three issues that really do worry them.

I might add, Madam President, at this stage that the taxi association advised me that they did not realise that they could have come along today to brief the members of the upper House. I certainly did not raise it with them and perhaps I should have done, but they were not aware of that.

They said that they could not really follow where this bill was going because things were happening and they weren't happening, and it was on again, it was off again; they are having difficulties understanding and keeping up with the process. They do agree that they had input. They did indicate that not always what was said by them was accepted, of course, that the Transport Commission would come back to them and do what they indicated in the first place they were going to do - they were not swayed - and I can understand that happening as well.

It is not a matter of the association or these operators out there saying, 'We don't any part of this bill'. They are not saying that at all. They are saying, 'We need the bill'. They are saying that the licensing of drivers and other things need some attention and they are happy with that. But they say that they need to get it right. They need some protection, themselves, and they need to be assured that they can run a business that is going to be viable. They are saying it is very touchy out there at the present time, that they are not making fortunes. Perhaps the big owners - those that are able to lease their taxis - may well be, sitting back, getting their 10 per cents, but there are many others out there who are not doing well at all and I do not think the bill takes that into account.

But, Madam President, I am not saying any more at this stage in the second reading, but certainly during the next stage, if it reaches that stage - and I am confident it will - then I will certainly have something to say.

TAXI AND LUXURY HIRE CAR INDUSTRIES BILL 2008 (No. 44)

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 -
(Effect of owner-operator taxi licence)

Mr DEAN - I asked a question this morning during the briefing, Mr Chairman, in relation to owner-operator licences. Under this situation it will be legal for an owner-operator to own 10 or 15 taxis, provided they are registered in his or her name and meet some other criteria. But I understand it is possible to employ a manager to run that business for an owner-operator. I would like some clarification of that so it can be recorded in Hansard.

In the briefing this morning it was indicated that the risk in that situation is greatly increased on the risk that currently attaches to the perpetual licence holders. I understand that, but I would probably argue against it. If an owner-operator had a number of taxis and they employed the right manager with the knowledge and the capacity to manage that business, I cannot see that the risk is increased at all, because there are some owner-operators who probably would not have a similar capacity and ability to manage a number of taxis.

I would like it to be clarified that that can happen in those circumstances, Mr Chairman.

Mr PARKINSON - I think the general answer to the honourable member's question is this. While an owner-operator can employ a person in a managerial capacity, the owner-operator cannot remove himself from legal responsibility for every aspect of the taxi service. For example, they are responsible for the recruitment of qualified properly licensed drivers and the safety of vehicles, which is not the case with the mere plate owner who can shift that responsibility on to those beneath him. The point was made in the briefing this morning that, whilst a person may purchase more than one owner-operator licence, they have to attach a vehicle to each one, and a driver to each one as well, but there is no restriction against employing a manager to operate a business.

Mr DEAN - Thank you very much, I required that to be recorded.


Sitting suspended from 4 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.


Mr DEAN - My position here is simply to refer to the matter of owner-operator. When I first looked at the terminology 'owner-operator' I believed, as some others have, it meant that you owned the licence, the taxi and you drove the taxi. But it does not mean that at all. This bill, in my view, does not adequately define owner-operator. I wonder why? If you go to the definition part of the bill it refers you to Part 3 and you work through Part 3 to find out what an owner-operator is. I wonder why that is the case?

In most legislation you could go to the definition part of a bill and, in this instance, owner-operator means that you must register a taxi in your name et cetera, et cetera; however it is possible to have somebody else operate or manage it for you. It does not clearly define the term owner-operator.

It was not until some of the issues came out in the briefing and we looked at other documentation that you could work out exactly what owner-operator is all about. It was not until I had spoken to some of the taxi association and to some operators who were able to clearly and adequately define what an owner-operator is.

I wonder why it was not clearly identified in all the circumstances. It is all very well to refer to a part of a bill if there is a clear definition in that part of it but in this instance there is not. I found it to be an irregularity.

Mr Wilkinson - Do you think that clause 24(2) sets it out?

Mr DEAN - No.

Mr PARKINSON - I do not know if this is an anomaly at all. I do not think that it is. I will take some further advice in a moment but the honourable member for Nelson has partly answered the question because you need to read the bill to determine what the rights and responsibilities of an owner-operator are. It would be a complicated mess to define it in a definitions clause. We can look at clause 24 as an example. The person has to be a natural person.

Mr Wilkinson - What is an unnatural person?

Mr PARKINSON - The person has to be the registered operator. If you go to clause 25 and various others, there is also the responsible operator of that licence. Keep going and you find what the licence obligations are. You do not need a one-line or two-line definition. My adviser essentially supports what I have said - look at clauses 24, 25 and 26 for the sum total of what it means. To try to define that in a definitions clause is making things messy.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 -
(Issue of owner-operator taxi licences)

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - In clause 22 we are talking about the issue of owner-operator taxi licences and regarding subclause (3), I would appreciate it if the honourable Leader in charge of the bill would put on Hansard what the conditions are likely to be as the commission determines a taxi licence, or the issuing of a taxi licence. I think we talked a little this morning in the briefing about how important it is to transfer the information we get in briefings into Hansard so that the people who read this will clearly understand what is going on as we go through the bill. So I would appreciate it if such conditions could be clarified in this instance.

Mr PARKINSON - It is an enabling clause. It will enable the commission to place conditions on licences. There is not an existing list of conditions that the commission currently intends to place on licences. The current position with perpetual licences is that they cannot put conditions on them. But, for example, with the WAT licence, there will be conditions specified in relation to safety of vehicles, the swipe card, the type of taxi meter for what vehicle and so on. It is an enabling clause that will enable conditions to be placed on licences.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - In that case, the commission may determine such conditions and I hear what you say about the types of conditions. Given that I heard this morning from the briefing that the commission consists of one person in this case, does the commission or that person take advice externally about the conditions that will be attached to an operator taxi licence or does the industry provide feedback? I am wondering how these conditions are arrived at.

Mr PARKINSON - My advice is that these things generally come from the industry. Obviously, consultation is involved and the review and appeal provisions apply, in any event. For example, Mr Chairman, with the WAT licences, there were complaints that not enough service was being given to the people meant to be serviced by the WAT-type of vehicle, so a licence could be imposed, requiring a certain amount of that service to be provided by that licence. That is just an example of what could happen. Regarding the requirement that I mentioned earlier about the swipe card, that card is carried by the user and prevents fraud in relation to the return to the operator of the WAT licence. There is a requirement that WAT vehicles have that meter.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23 -
(Number of owner-operator taxi licences to be made available)

Mr DEAN - Mr Chairman, I move -

That clause 23 be amended by leaving out subclause (1) and inserting -

'(1) Before 30 September in each year, the Commission may make available for issue in each taxi area an additional number of owner-operator taxi licences based on an assessment of the need for taxi services according to such criteria as the Commission may determine.';

and in subclause (4) by leaving out 'calculated' and inserting 'assessed'.

Mr Aird - I don't think your heart is in this.

Mr DEAN - Of course my heart is in it.

Mr Chairman, in moving that amendment it identified that the original amendment moved, in the paragraph inserted, had the word 'must' before 30 September in each year, so the commission 'must' make available. That is now being changed to 'may'. If this amendment were to stand or fall on the word 'must' or 'may', I would be quite happy and content in the circumstances to return to the word 'must' because as the amendment currently stands, it would also require an amendment to clause 22(1) and that was referred to in the briefing this morning. It would need to read 'the Commission may' to satisfy this amendment. If it were to stand and fall on 'must' or 'may', I would be content to return to 'must' and I think that could probably be done as a minor amendment with my taking that position.

Ms Thorp - Through you, Mr Chairman - are you saying stick with the clause in the bill but change 'must' to 'may', or are you talking about changing -

[4.45 p.m.]
Mr DEAN - I am talking about this amendment. You are right in raising that issue because if clause 22(1) was to read 'may', that may well satisfy the situation but you would need to change clause 23(1) to 'may' also. You would need to change to 'may' in both instances. If that was the situation, I could accept that and I think that the Taxi Industry Association could accept that in the circumstances. I will refer to a comment made during Estimates on 20 June 2007. The operators are saying, Mr Chairman, that if there happened to be a downturn in population, as we had back in the 1990s, if tourism bottomed out - and currently, as I understand it, the tourism figures in this State are not increasing at this time; I think there are some issues there in relation to tourism - and if it can be shown that there is a downturn in the market so the taxi operators and drivers are really struggling to make a living and services are dropping off as a result of all of this, the Transport Commission must still issue further licences, even though -

Mr Harriss - They may not be taken up. Market forces wouldn't allow it.

Mr DEAN - They may not be taken up but the fact remains that they would still have to issue them. Why in all the circumstances would that need to occur?

Mr Wing - Must make them available for issue.

Mr DEAN - Must make them available for issue, sorry.

Mr Wing - It is up to others whether they take them up.

Mr DEAN - Must make them available to be issued in all of the circumstances. That is the concern that they have and, as they say, the more licences that you get out there, the more people you have involved in this industry, the less money, fewer passengers there are available to the other operators. What they are saying is that it does nothing for the viability of the industry or the business at all, and it is not likely to improve the services. That is what this bill is all about, as I understand it. This bill is about improving the services to the people out there -

Mr Martin - Which it does by providing competition.

Mr DEAN - Competition does not always increase services and make services better. Competition does not always do that; sometimes competition can have a reverse effect, so it is not always the case but I understand where you are coming from. That is the issue.

I refer you to the Hansard of 20 June 2007. There was quite a bit of discussion in an Estimates committee that the lower House member, Mr Gutwein was on, where he raised a number of issues with the members involved in the putting together of this bill. I make a couple of comments about it. Mr Gutwein asked a question:

'Was it ever taken up; the extra 5 per cent?'

I do not want to read through the full answer given but at the end of that answer by Mr Hope he said:

'I should stress, too, that the new licences will be fundamentally different in character because they will not be leasable and the commission will be able to cancel them for breach of certain regulations'.

The conversation goes on and there is some comment about the fact that the value of the licences will decrease. Mr Gutwein asks the question:

'But that is going to occur, is it not?'

He is talking about the value of the licences. Mr Spence answers:

'No, it is more putting a cap on it. I do not accept that it is necessarily going to drive it down. We really need to look at the exponential rise in the number of licences that has occurred over the last five or so years. That has to be borne by someone and it has been borne, at least in part, by the customer'.

I would suggest it was also borne by some of the operators.

Mr Gutwein asks another long question, and I will just refer to the last part of this question, and I quote:

'If I have capital base that is set at $100 000 and we are talking about a more competitive price structure, that means that I am going to get less income'.

The answer by Mr Hope was:

'I think you need to balance the growth in the economy and the benefits to the holders of those existing licences against the fact that the release of these new licences will be gradual. It will be 5 per cent per annum, so it will probably be over a long time frame that any diminution in the value of existing licences takes place, if at all. It will be those countervailing forces - increase in population, disposable income, tourism et cetera - that are drivers of the size of the taxi market.'.

I understand and I accept all of that. They are some of the drivers of the market in this area. That is what the operators are saying, that that should be taken into account when determining whether or not more licences are released. They are saying that you shouldn't be able to -

Mr Martin - That is what will determine it because if there's not a market demand for it they won't take up their licences.

Mr DEAN - I do not think that is quite right. There are people out there who will see an opportunity here, I would suggest. In Launceston, for instance, a licence will have a reserve price of $35 000. There will be those people out there who may well see an opportunity to get the licence and then sit back and operate as they see fit -

Mr Wing - And block others.

Mr DEAN - and block others, that is exactly right. No doubt those people will be there. What they will do, as I said in the second reading debate, is work by picking the eyes out of the working times. There is an operator currently in Launceston whom I spoke to recently. He said he will only drive - he drives a taxi - during the better time. That is the contract he has with the owner of this taxi. He says he will only drive Friday afternoons and two or three other times he has stipulated. He will not drive late Saturday nights, late Friday nights et cetera. He will not drive during those dangerous periods at all.

Ms Forrest - Through you, Mr Chairman - if all the taxi drivers took that approach then there would a huge glut in the nice hours of the day that you are referring to, and so the market share would be reduced and it would not be economical for them to continue in that manner. There would perhaps be less servicing at those times - Friday nights and Saturday nights - but if they all chose to operate in those nice sociable hours there would not be the market share.

Mr DEAN - You might say that but there are many other issues out there. For instance, some of the drivers of these taxis are university students. They are people who are simply trying to get a little extra money so that they can exist and do what they need to do.

A lot of the owners say that the release of more licences into the field is not going to do what this bill sets out to do. That is their argument; it will not do what the bill is set up to do and improve the services.

I cannot take it any further. I can gauge from some of those comments that I am not going to get to much support for it, but I have certainly put the position as they identified to me. I have made that position known to you; I can do no more than that.

I want to refer to a couple of the comments made by the taxi association when they talked to me and wrote to me about this. I quote from their document:

'Industry maintains that the proposal to offer licences for sale in all taxi areas every year until the market reaches saturation completely disregards the following issues:

" Without a corresponding increase in the "size of the pie" every additional taxi introduced to the fleet reduces the earning capacity of the existing taxis to the detriment of the drivers and their families.

" The effect of introducing additional taxis into the Hobart and Launceston fleets over the past two and one half years has resulted in lower earnings inspite of regular fare increases.

" Gross earnings per hour have steadily decreased in all other areas over recent years due mainly to changes in business activity.

" That poor hourly rates is the main reason that drivers are leaving the industry each year at a greater rate than that of new entrants coming in.

" That any slowing of business activity driven by the public attempting to cope with increasing interest rates, increasing rents, higher fuel prices, and increasing essential living costs will further reduce industry revenue resulting in worsening incomes for drivers, reduced vehicle standards, minimal maintenance programs, and more drivers leaving the industry.

" We are concerned that continued decreases in available labour will impact on the industry's ability to provide sufficient vehicles to meet demand particularly during the late night early morning hours.'

If you return to the maintenance issue, they are required to meet standards, to have six-monthly inspections and to have the 10 000 kilometre accreditation inspection as well. What they have said is that, with additional licences out there but a similar amount of work, there will be less money in this area and so they will probably try to get extra kilometres out of their tyres and extra out of their vehicle by not having their own services done on top of these six-monthly inspections, and so on. They will be making those changes to try to ensure that they still get a reasonable income, because that is all it can be said it is.

There are many reasons I put this amendment forward. I put the amendment as it is and urge members to seriously consider it. It is not about diminishing the services to the public. That is not what it is about. Taxi operators are currently providing quite a good service to the public. An assessment, Mr Chairman, could easily be made. There are criteria that the Transport Commission have such that they could make an assessment on the necessity for further licences to be issued annually.

For instance, they can look at the increases in market; they can look at tourism and where that is going; they can look at the time waits between a taxi getting a call and picking up a passenger. I understand the average waiting time currently is about seven minutes. I understand that is considered to be a reasonable waiting period for a taxi, from the time you order it to the time you get it.

Ms Thorp - It takes longer than that at Clifton.

Mr DEAN - It may well. There are certain areas. If you were at Derwent Park and wanted a taxi, I should imagine you would wait two or three hours for it. So you are right, but we are talking about Hobart, Launceston, Burnie, Devonport and the larger areas.

Mr Wilkinson - During working hours.

Mr DEAN - Yes, well -

Mr Wilkinson - I have been rung up on numerous occasions to act as a taxi to drive my kids home because they've been waiting for an hour or an hour and a half.

Mr DEAN - I do not know why that has been. Maybe they gave the wrong directions or something like that, I do not know. But that will still happen, will it not? The member for Nelson, by way of interjection, raises that issue that no matter how many taxis you have out there, there will be times when the waiting time will be much longer because there may be a special function on that has thousands of people there. AFL football at Launceston is a good example. I suspect that on those days when the AFL football is playing there are not enough taxis around and that the waiting time is probably outside the seven-minute period. But they are special events and you cannot really put into place circumstances that would satisfy all those major events because it would be unreasonable, I would think, to cover that, although the temporary taxi licences have been set up for the purposes of working in some of those areas to relieve some of the pressures.

[5.00 p.m.]
In my view, there are opportunities here for the Transport Commission to look at whether or not licences should be released. They have control of it. That amendment still gives them the right to do that. It simply means that they will be required to do an assessment of the circumstances. I would not have thought that was too much to ask.

I will just reiterate, if it came down to 'must' and 'may' then I would be quite prepared to move back to the 'must' to satisfy those members who might have some issues or concerns about that.

Mr PARKINSON - It goes without saying that the amendment is opposed. The honourable member makes a number of points that did confuse the debate somewhat. The main argument here from the honourable member is that licences should only be released by the commission once it has determined that there is a need for new licences.

In a nutshell, it is anti-competitive - it would take the current position back some years. I will go through the points in my advice here because it is fairly detailed. The proposal would amend the current provision that require the commission to offer 5 per cent of the existing number of licences on issue in a taxi area each year in favour of a number of licences determined according to an assessment of need for services.

So the proposal attempts to amend what the current position is right now even without this bill going through. So the amendment is not supported. Such restriction on the supply of taxi licences would provide the incumbent members of the taxi industry with a very high degree of protection from the possibility of new competition.

This is most undesirable in the case of an important service industry, which must have appropriate incentives to respond to the needs of the general public. Further, the amendment would involve a dramatic change to a licence release system that has only operated in the urban taxi areas since last year. This system has been endorsed by the National Competition Council and was important in ensuring that Tasmania obtained its full competition policy payments from the Commonwealth Government.

Existing annual licence release process allows market forces to have an influence in determining the level of supply of taxi services when, as members would appreciate, the supply side of a market is only being allowed to operate within strict limits. The primary concern with the proposed amendment is that it would largely exclude direct market forces from the process. The argument for the amendment is based on comments recorded in Hansard that have been taken out of context. I think the honourable member was referring to these comments.

During budget Estimates 2007, a DIER officer made reference to a number of factors that influence the size of the potential market for taxi services. The statement was made in response to concerns expressed on behalf of the taxi industry that the existing perpetual licences would fall in value through the release of new owner-operator licences. A frequent claim made by some members of the taxi industry is that the market for taxi services in Tasmania has remained static for many years. The industry uses this as a basis for arguing for extremely restrictive licence release arrangements.

However, the DIER officer was suggesting that given the trends evident in a range of relevant economic factors since the current act was instituted the potential Tasmanian market was likely to have expanded. This growth will have occurred even if the taxi industry had done nothing new or different to attract greater patronage. Natural growth in the potential taxi market should continue in the future with a rate of growth varying over time as the underlying economic factors themselves vary.

Despite this, in no respect is it practical or appropriate for the Transport Commission to use these factors in undertaking its own assessment of need to decide how many new licences should be made available. This would amount to an attempt to second-guess the behaviour of the market across each of Tasmania's 24 taxi areas. It is not at all evident why such unusual and difficult arrangements should be instituted, particularly when the current approach has had such a brief trial period. There are many conceptual and practical issues with the proposed amendment that must be considered. Just to summarise the most significant of these, logically a valid assessment of need must try to capture data on the numbers of both actual and potential passengers. In regard to actual passenger numbers, there are no central and comprehensive records of all taxi trips. A substantial proportion of trips are not booked and recorded through radio networks. Further, not all taxis have any affiliation with networks.

Measuring the number of potential passengers equates to quantifying unmet demand. This is a very challenging task because presently this information is not collected at all and would be impractical to gather on a regular basis. Unmet demand would include those potential taxi passengers who decide to make alternative travel arrangements in the belief that a taxi will not be available. Logically it would also include instances where people had waited unsuccessfully at a taxi rank or failed to find a passing vehicle that could be hailed. Any substitute or proxy measure of total demand will be imperfect. Statistics on all relevant demographic and economic variables would need to be available, with a suitable frequency and timeliness. Inevitably the information would be based on past circumstances and therefore could not anticipate emerging market trends but may impact on the number of licences that the market determines to be viable. The statistical information would also need to accord, at least roughly, with the boundaries of Tasmania's taxi areas. The existing data sources are not suitable in this regard. Embarking on a research exercise specifically to capture all the relevant information would represent a large and expensive task that would have no guarantee of producing an accurate outcome. Even if adequate data could be obtained, there is then the question of how changes in this information translate to the demand for taxi services and the number of additional licences required.

Finally, it is likely that the commission's final decision would be subject to appeal and review. This course of action, together with other legal means, could be pursued by self-interested parties to delay the release of additional licences.

From the above it should be abundantly clear that the proposed amendment cannot be supported. It would mean reverting to the unjustifiably high level of protection afforded in the past to the incumbent industry players when a more open system has just begun operating. In addition, the amendment entails the adoption of a complicated and costly bureaucratic exercise that is unlikely to deliver real benefits to the travelling public. It is the public that must be regarded as the main stakeholders in the regulation of taxi services. Instead, it is far more preferable to continue with a simple and predictable process that allows the market, through its own assessment of supply and demand, to have the final say in how many new licences are put into operation.

Honourable members, it is my advice - and I think it was spelt out in part in the briefing this morning - that the commission has looked at these matters in coming to what is regarded as a fair number in the 5 per cent. It looked at a whole range of issues. It is not a big number; it is regarded as a number that will not put pressure on the industry. In any event, as has already been explained, that pressure will be regulated by the market forces that are in train. In other words, people will not have to buy the licences. The honourable member says, 'Well, someone might buy them all and sit on them'. That has been the way that has been possible in the past with the expensive licences -

Mr Martin - But they have to buy cars with these.

Mr PARKINSON - but at least with these you have to buy a car and you have to have an operator. If somebody is going to try to rort the system, as I think was pointed out pretty well in the briefing this morning, there are ways of getting around that. The ongoing monitoring will ensure that the system is fair and is not rorted, so I urge honourable members not to support the amendment.

Ms FORREST - Mr Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment for all the reasons the Leader has just alluded to. I appreciate that this has not really been an issue on the north-west generally because we do not have the demand. But as far as demonstrating that the market will determine the number of licences that need to be available in a certain area, I think it is clearly demonstrated by that experience on the north-west coast. We heard in the briefing today, very clearly, that the argument that the member for Windermere put has been put by the industry a number of times over 12 or 13 years, I think; that putting extra licences on the market would open it up, there would be too many people operating in the industry and not be enough market share for those to survive and other arguments.

When a number of licences were put up in 2007, in Hobart and Launceston, I understand those licences were all taken up to such an extent that they had to release more. On the north-west coast there were still licences sitting on the desk. Clearly, on the north-west coast the market has decided that there is not the demand otherwise someone would have taken them up.

The proposed amendment suggests assessment which generally involves looking back at what has been happening. I think the Leader also made the comment that when you look at what has happened in the past it does not leave any room for might happen in the future. When you are in business you do look to the future. You look at where your new market share might come from. You look at how you can expand the aspects of your business; you do not look back. You might look back at your history and say, we have come from here, we have grown our business in this area, but where to now. If you see an area of demand then you invest. I would assume and hope that most business people do a risk analysis and assess their risk by doing a proper business case and looking at whether it is this a viable investment for their business. If they determine that it is not, they will not go down that path because obviously the market is not there or they do not think they are going to make money out of it. Most sensible investors would do that, regardless of how they investing within their business. This is the business we are talking about because with an owner-operator licence you have to be involved in the business, as opposed to the perpetual licence where you did not have to be.

If you, as a potential newcomer into the industry, take a look at it and assess that you could make money from this, you want to be in the industry, you have done a risk analysis and determined that there is a business case you can support, if licences are available you can put in a tender for one. If the demand is not there and you have assessed the risk, you will not go out and do it. I think, by allowing that 5 per cent, which we have determined is not a great number, to be made available each year, if they are taken up, obviously the demand is there. If it is not, people will either be trying to get rid of them or sell them or whatever. If they are not taken up, then next year 5 per cent of that same amount will still be the same amount on offer. It is not going to keep going up, certainly not in the short term.

I think the market will decide. I think that demand will continue to determine supply. While the demand is there, the supply would increase. It allows for increase in population and increase in demand with tourism or whatever. I certainly hope, as a Tasmanian, that we do see increased demand; we have more people coming to the State and more tourists as well as more people using public transport for a variety of reasons. But if that does not happen, for some reason - and I am quite confident with climate change we will see an increase in population, people moving from the north to get away from the heat perhaps - but whatever happens, this will allow for that to gradually meet that demand. I think it is a reasonable way to do it. It think it does ensure that level of pressure on the current operators to ensure they do not become complacent and get a bit slack in service delivery and service provision, because there is always a risk that someone who is really dedicated and keen will come into the market and perhaps offer a better service and potentially challenge those long-term operators to lift their game, if that is needed. I am not saying it is needed, but if it is, the threat of new competition will always, hopefully, have that benefit. I am happy to support the bill as it is and to reject the amendment.

[5.15 p.m.]
Mr WING - Mr Chairman, on the basis of the information I was given today - that is that in 1998-99 there were 93 taxi licences in the Launceston area and now there are 118 - that means that in the period of about 10 years there has been an increase of 25 licences, 2.5 per annum. On those figures, the current number of 118, if that is correct, there will, if this provision remains in the bill unamended, be approximately six more licences issued this year and six next year, probably about six the following year and perhaps seven in 2011, if all those that are offered are taken up. That will mean over a period of four years there would be 25 new licences, whereas in the last 10 years there have been 25 only.

I do not see the need for taxis increasing at that rate. I do not see, either on economic grounds or on tourism or on any other grounds, that it is likely that we are going to need that substantial increase in the Launceston area in the next four years. I have an affinity for and an empathy with the points that are being made by the honourable member for Windermere and I have an empathy for the motion that he is moving. National competition policies may be good in some areas for some types of industries, but in Tasmania with our population often the application of national competition policies to this State are detrimental to people who have provided very good service in various types of operations for many years.

I believe there is also the risk, bearing in mind that the likely cost of owner-operator licences will be in the low $30 000s whereas perpetual licences are valued somewhere in the vicinity of $130 000 or more, for some of the big operators to come in and buy up as many of the owner-operator licences as they can to gain more control and to block others. That is hardly in the interests of competition if that were to happen and I believe that there is a risk of that happening.

If the Transport Commission were to assess what is an appropriate number of new licences on an annual basis, bearing in mind the needs of the public and the desirability of real competition, not a structure which can lead to some monopolisation by some big companies of an industry, then that would be the better approach. One thing that we do have to take into account, whether we agree with National Competition Policy being applied everywhere or not, is what effect the amendment would have on that and I would appreciate it if the honourable Leader could give some more clarification about the effect. If the honourable member's amendment, which I would like to be supporting and it is my current intention to support, is carried, what effect does it have on the requirements of the National Competition Policy? I would like to know that before making a final decision on this.

Mr PARKINSON - As far as National Competition Policy is concerned that is a matter for others. If it were decided that the system was going back to the previous case where entry into the industry was being restricted, then obviously those in charge of National Competition Policy would see it as being anti-competitive and I cannot stand here and speculate on what findings may or may not be. But certainly the issuing of the new licences was determined to comply with National Competition Policy and if this amendment were carried it would revert back to something like we had under the old system where you had restricted entry in the industry.

In fact, I have already made the point that the mere involvement of the commission in artificially assessing need based on past figures would, in itself, lead to defacto restriction because people will be able to use that administrative process to further appeal and to use it to block the issuing of new licences. So if you have it determined by the industry, itself, through forces of supply and demand, then nobody can argue against that, from the point of view of competition, effectively operating because it has competition in operation as you look at it. There are licences on the counter; if people want them they will buy them, if they do not they will sit there, which brings me back to the point that the honourable member for Launceston made in the beginning - he is assuming, of course, that there will be this exponential growth in the licences in Launceston. There may not be because if, in any year, none of the licences that were put on the counter were taken up, then there would be no exponential growth - sure, there would be a 5 per cent climb to the total figure but it would not be increasing exponentially. Even if it did, surely that would indicate that there is a demand for those licences, that somebody wants to operator a taxi, buy a taxi licence to run a business.

Ms Forrest - Through you, Mr Chairman - aren't those licences, if they are not used, torn up at the end of the year and then we start again? It is not as though they would sit there and be added to.

Mr PARKINSON - That is right, they do not accumulate. At the end of the period -

Mr Wing - Unless they are taken up.

Ms Forrest - They do not accumulate, they use them.

Mr PARKINSON - No, that is right.

Mr MARTIN - Mr Chairman, to support the Leader's comments again today - I am making a habit of this -

Mr Parkinson - Welcome, brother, welcome.

Ms Thorp - Good legislation is good legislation.

Mr MARTIN - The only other comment I would add to what the Leader has just said is that the honourable member for Launceston, with the figures he quoted - I did not have a chance to jot them down - an increase of about 20 per cent in licences over 10 years, roughly?

Mr Aird - Twenty-five.

Mr MARTIN - Twenty-five per cent so that is -

Mr Wing - Twenty-five licences over 10 years.

Mr MARTIN - Which is roughly a 20 per cent increase, I think I worked out in my head.

Mr Aird - Yes, roughly.

Mr MARTIN - Which is about 2 per cent a year. As I said in my previous contribution in the second reading debate, in the same period we have had a massive increase in the Tasmanian population but a much more massive increase in the number of visitors. Sure, the tourism industry is not growing at the same rate at the moment, but it will again in the future, but over that 10-year period we had the massive increase following the purchase of the two Spirits and the cheap airline seats; we opened up the figures here in the Chamber today. With the increase in visitors to the State, the number of people using taxis would have grown substantially more than the percentage increase in licences that you have just quoted.

The final comment I will make is that what we really have here, with the bill as it is proposed at the moment, is a decision as to how many licences that can be taken up each year is in the hands of the industry itself through market forces.

The alternative that is being proposed with this amendment is that an arbitrary figure is plucked out of the air magically by someone in the department. And that is not as good a way of determining it as letting the market decide.

Mr Parkinson - And there is no upper limit to an assessment.

Mr MARTIN - No there is not. It could be more than 5 per cent.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - Mr Chairman, I have a question to the honourable Leader just so that I can make a completely informed decision about whether I support this amendment or not. Can someone advise me, given the figures that the member for Launceston has used in the 1993 increase to 118, how many of those licences were for what - as in the wheelchair access licences that have been allocated in that year? I need to get some clarity about whether that has impacted on the number of licences, seeing that they are fairly new into the industry. I am looking for an answer so I can be fully informed.

Mr PARKINSON - Of the 118 licences, approximately 12 are WATs. These vehicles are provided for substantial growth in demand for taxi services for a sector of the community that could not previously access transport in taxis so they now travel regularly. Only 10 of the 118 licences are new perpetual taxi licences. A further 10 licences in 10 years does not represent unreasonable growth in supply of taxi services.

Mr WING - Mr Chairman, both the provisions in the bill and in the amendment restrict the increase in the number of new licences. If we use the term 'restrict' they both have that effect. It is only a question of how it is done. In one case an assessment is made as to what is appropriate by the officers of the Transport Commission and they decided 5 per cent a year is the restriction, if you use that expression 'restriction'. Or, alternatively, 5 per cent is the increase permitted. But that is controlling the situation in just the same way that the amendment is. So it is not appropriate to criticise the amendment as being restrictive because it has exactly the same effect as the provisions in this bill. It is just a question of how the restriction and the procedure to increase the numbers of licences occur.

Rather than using the word 'restriction in either case or both cases, I prefer to use the word 'control' because in each case some means of control is being established. It is a question of which of those means of controlling the increase of the licences is accepted. I think that so far in this debate the feeling has been generated that the provisions in the bill are not restrictive but the amendment is restrictive - they both are equally but in different ways. That is the first point that I would like to make and the main point at this call.

The honourable Leader has referred on a couple of occasions to the appeal provisions and we were told that they are going to be contained in the regulations. I just take this opportunity to express some surprise that the appeal provisions will be in the regulations rather than in the legislation because I would regard provisions giving a right of appeal to be a policy matter which should be contained in legislation rather than regulations which are designed to deal with procedural matters. I just make that point.

[5.30 p.m.]
Of the two means of controlling the increase in the numbers I would prefer to see those who are professionals in this area, those who have decided on the 5 per cent, making that decision on an annual basis in case there is some dramatic change of circumstances, either an explosion in our population or a great improvement in our economy - which is in good shape already, I acknowledge - or some dramatic deterioration in the economy or a drain on our population. Then these factors can be taken into account, rather than saying 2008 5 per cent per annum, that is it, regardless of all the circumstances which could vary considerably in the next few years.

For those reasons I prefer the provisions of the amendment to those of the bill and I will be supporting the amendment. I am relieved to hear what the honourable Leader had to say about any consequences having regard to the National Competition Policy. In recent years - and I cannot remember the actual bill, it may have been Shop Trading Hours - we were told that Tasmania would suffer to the extent of many millions of dollars if we did not pass that particular legislation because it was contrary to the National Competition Policy. I am pleased to hear that there are no such consequences in relation to this legislation if we do not support the provisions of the bill. I support the amendment.

Ms Forrest - Mr Chairman, before the honourable member for Launceston sits down, would not the temporary licence provision allow a population explosion, or explosion in tourism, to be addressed through the issue of those temporary licences which can be for a period of time until you can review the situation?

Mr WING - Yes, but it is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with it. I would not expect if we have a massive increase in the population that that is going to decrease within a few months through the duration of the temporary licence.

Ms Forrest - The temporary licences are not necessarily limited in how long they last, are they?

Mr WING - No, but they are temporary and increase in population is usually permanent.

Mr DEAN - I thank the member for Launceston for raising those issues and raising them very well.

Just to add a bit to that in regard to the 5 per cent, the member for Elwick talks about an arbitrary figure being plucked out of the air by the Transport Commission in relation to the amendment that is currently before them. What is arbitrary about looking at the market increases in this area? I fail to see what is arbitrary about that. What is arbitrary about looking at the population increases over a year, tourism increases over a year, the waiting time for taxis - which is on record and can be obtained - the telephone requests made to taxi operators for bookings for taxi services, et cetera. I cannot understand what is arbitrary about that figure, but I can certainly see what is arbitrary about a 5 per cent figure. Where does the 5 per cent figure come from? The member for Launceston raises this. I wonder where the people putting this bill together came up with a figure of 5 per cent. Was that a calculation based on the increases that we normally see or was it simply a figure plucked out of the air, thinking 5 per cent seems reasonable. The comment was made, if I remember rightly, that it appeared reasonable. Is not 3 per cent reasonable, 4 per cent reasonable or 2 per cent reasonable? I just wonder where it came from. What would happen in a situation - and it could happen - where we suddenly had a huge influx into Launceston, for instance, we had tourists flocking into that area and there was a need to increase taxi licences in that area by about 10 per cent? What would happen? As I understand this legislation, they cannot; they can only be increased by 5 per cent, must increase it by 5 per cent. So it should read -

'Must increase it by at least 5 per cent'.

Does it say that? I do not know, let me return to it -

Mr Parkinson - Five per cent.

Mr DEAN - That is right, so it is arbitrary. It is clear, if you read it that way, it can only be increased by 5 per cent. I think the Leader is agreeing with me there.

Ms Thorp - Or by one owner-operator taxi licence, whichever is greater.

Mr DEAN - One owner-operator taxi licence, yes.

Mr Wing - So you're right, if there was a need for 10 per cent it would be unduly restricted.

Mr DEAN - That is right, it would be unduly restricted.

Mr Parkinson - One could be a 100 per cent increase.

Mr DEAN - In a certain area it could be, of course. We are talking about those bigger areas in the main. I think we need to -

Ms Thorp - Excuse me. Would you feel the same way if it was about takeaway shops? Petrol stations? Would you feel the same way if this was about florists?

Mr DEAN - We are not dealing with florists, we are dealing with taxi licences, and I do not think I am going to get sidetracked onto florists or any other issues.

Ms Thorp - But do you honestly think the commission should be coming in and arbitrarily -

Mr DEAN - Take the member for Rumney's comment there. Are you saying that we should look at increasing florists by a certain percentage every year? Is that what you are saying?

Ms Thorp - I'm saying that what this says is that there is a set formula and it is market forces-determined. They will be taken up or they may not be taken up. Under this scenario, you are suggesting that bureaucrats make some decision about the marketplace on an annual basis. That is not the responsibility of the licensing body.

Mr Wing - They are the ones who determined 5 per cent. Is it not their responsibility?

Mr DEAN - Well done, thank you for that. That is right, and that is what I said a moment ago. They plucked the figure of 5 per cent from somewhere, and I would be interested to know where they got the figure of 5 per cent from. The member for Murchison - I do not want to attack people, but I just want to make this clear - says if there is not the demand out there, the licences will not be taken up. The taxi industry argues with that. Their argument is that because there is a cheaper value to these owner-operator licences - there will be a reserve price in Launceston of $35 000 - that there will be people out there taking up these licences who are in retirement mode, or simply want some part-time work. So they will go out there and buy a licence and then only work the hours they want to bring in a few dollars to support themselves, or as an interest, or for whatever other reason.

So they say that they will be taken up by people out there who may be able to get them at the reserve price -

Ms Thorp - You also said a little while ago that a lot of people were only earning $25 000 a year working 60 hours a week, and now you're suggesting a retiree will go out and spend $35 000 on a licence to work a couple of hours a week. The logic doesn't follow.

Mr DEAN - The logic is this. They do not spend the $35 000 annually; it is a long-term investment for them. It is an investment that will be probably made over a 10 or 15-year period. You would be right if they had to pay the $35 000 every year, but I fail to understand the argument of the member for Rumney. They are not paying $35 000 every year; they simply pay it once. They get their licence and, provided they honour the terms and conditions of that licence, they can keep that licence forever and a day, and operate on that licence. So they may have it for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. And at the end of that process they could sell it off, I would suggest, and recover their money. So in the meantime they have earned their money by operating that taxi on that output.

Ms Thorp - If that is where you are coming from, I cannot understand whether your logic is about flooding the market with too many operators or having operators who do not work enough.

Mr DEAN - It cuts the available money that is out there for the people who are in this industry for a living. Many drivers -

Ms Thorp - It will not deliver them a monopoly.

Mr DEAN - No, not at all.

Ms Thorp - Why don't you let the market determine it?

Mr DEAN - The member for Rumney is putting forward a flawed argument. It is not what that is about at all. It is not about creating monopolies at all. It is about providing a service out there that the market requires.

Ms Thorp - Let the market decide.

Mr DEAN - I thought I had put up a reasonable position here, and I thank the member for Launceston, who also covered adequately other areas that I had not referred to.

Mr Wing - The market can't decide if it should be increased to 10 per cent because this legislation will restrict it to 5 per cent.

Mr DEAN - That is right, it will be prohibited.

Mr Wing - So it is anti-competitive.

Mr DEAN - I do not know what the answer to that is. Perhaps the Leader is able to answer that. As I understand it, you cannot do that the way the bill is currently written. It is a 5 per cent increase, not 6 per cent, not 7 per cent.

Mr PARKINSON - If you read clause 23(4), that provides for a further issue at the tender price of owner-operator licences because it reads:

'If, in any taxi area -

(a) the average tender price for those licences sold in accordance with this section exceeds the reserve price for that licence by more than 100%; and

(b) all available licences for that taxi area are sold -

the Commission must make available a further number of owner-operator taxi licences, calculated in accordance with subsection (1), for sale by further tender as soon as practicable.'

It is wrong to assume that there is no flexibility in this based on demand because that flexibility is there to enable further adjustment in accordance with the demand and supply mechanisms within the market.

Be careful what you wish for because, if the system of the members for Launceston and Rosevears was to apply, there is no upper limit.

Ms Forrest - Windermere.

Mr PARKINSON - Sorry, Windermere.

Mr Wing - But I am sure Rosevears is thinking the same.

Members laughing.

Mr PARKINSON - There is no upper limit to this assessment that the honourable members for Launceston and Windermere would have in the act.

Mr Dean - That is one of the arguments. Why then is there a lower limit?

Mr PARKINSON - Five per cent is a certain and gradual figure. Clause 23, as currently drafted, meets the Tasmanian National Competition Policy obligations and provides the possibility for potential entrants to come into the market. The two methods are very different, contrary to what the honourable member for Launceston says, because the amendment entails a costly and complex, backward-looking, appealable, inefficient, unpredictable process.

Mr Harriss - Tell us what you really think, then.

Members laughing.

Mr PARKINSON - They are very different methods. The 5 per cent method is much more predictable.

Ms FORREST - I just want to clarify one point here. In clause 23(1) it says that -

'Before 30 September in each year, the Commission must make available for issue in each taxi area an additional number of owner-operator taxi licences equivalent to -

(a) 5% of the total ?; or

(b) one owner-operator licence -

whichever is the greater.'

Does this assessment, the 5 per cent of the total, include current temporary licences?

Mr Parkinson - No.

Ms FORREST - The honourable member for Launceston raised the issue that there could be a huge explosion in our population and demand for taxis. Then part (4) of this clause would kick in if all the licences exceed the reserve price by 100 per cent or more and all the available licences had been sold, and that would deal with the issue of a dramatic and unexpected increase in the demand. Is that what you are saying? Your other comment related to the requirement under the National Competition Policy and was that you would have to release licences each year - that is a requirement and it has to be met, whether it be one or five or 10. The issue is that even if you do release there is no compulsion to take them up.

Mr Parkinson - That's right.

Ms FORREST - So the market will decide whether they are taken up.

Amendment so negatived.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 -
(Application for owner-operator taxi licence)

[5.45 p.m.]
Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - Mr Chairman, this is another area that I would like some clarification from the honourable Leader. This is about the application for an owner-operator taxi licence and it requires that an application be accompanied by the prescribed fee. If that application is rejected, is the fee fully refunded? Also, is there a time frame for the application to be assessed within that assessment process?

Mr PARKINSON - First, the application fee is not refundable but it does not need to be because you do not pay it until you receive your licence. As for the time limit, there is no time limit to assist people to get the information together that they need. For example, it may take some time for security checks and information to be provided by the police. I hope that answers your question.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - That is not how I read it in reference to the prescribed fee accompanying the application. I cannot quite understand how you could lodge your application without providing the prescribed fee and then say you do not have to do so until you are given your licence. That is not how subclause (1) reads to me; I am happy to get some more clarity on that but that is not how I read it:

'An application for an owner-operator taxi licence is to be made by an individual in a form approved by the Commission and is to be accompanied by the prescribed fee.'

Mr Wilkinson - Correct.

Mr Parkinson - It is only successful tenderers who fill out this application. After the tender process, outlined in clause 23, is completed -

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - But this is for an application for an owner-operator taxi licence, it is not for a tender.

Mr Parkinson - No, it is only successful tenderers that apply.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - So there is a prior process before we get to this?

Mr Parkinson - Yes.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - People will not be turned down in this process then because they have already been approved; is that what you are telling me?

Mr Wilkinson - That's a fair question.

Mr PARKINSON - It is a matter of getting one's mind around the process. Anybody can participate in the tender process. If you are a successful tenderer then you apply. In applying you satisfy the various criteria, that you are a fit and proper person, you have an appropriate vehicle, and so on. It is at that point that you pay the fee, which is not refundable.

Mr Wilkinson - But you might not be successful. Subclause (3) reads:

'The Commission is to refuse an application for an owner-operator taxi licence if the Commission is not satisfied that the applicant would be the operator of the taxi service to be provided under the authority of that licence.'

So it would seem to me that you pay the fee, but you still might be refused. You get through the first process, the tendering process, you then go into the application process, you may not be successful in the application process, you must pay your fee. Please tell me if that is right, but that is as I read it. If you are then knocked back you do not get your money back.

Mr Parkinson - No, it is not refundable.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - Why don't you get your money back?

Mr Parkinson - I will take some advice if you want it, but I would say that it covers a host of administrative procedures that are put in train by the application.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - Like a police check? I would assume that something like that would go with an application. You would do your homework beforehand.

Mr Parkinson - A police check.

Ms Thorp - That's the next stage.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER -Well, no, that is not how it reads. The member for Nelson clearly articulated that it is still part of that process. So if you had your application turned down for one reason or another why would you not receive your money back?

Ms Forrest - How much are we talking about, do we know?

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - We might be talking about $300 or $400. That is my understanding, and I am loath to sit down because I will not have an opportunity to get up again.

Mr Wilkinson - Stand up and grow tall.

Mr Parkinson - To be fair, without making you sit down again, you will have had to provide sufficient information with your application to support it. Your police check will be there, and all those things. So unless you have misrepresented yourself in some way you are not going to be knocked back. If you have provided your police check and you have filled out your application, paid your $100, you have your vehicle -

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - You are a fit and proper person.

Mr Parkinson - Yes, everything is there so you are not going to be knocked back unless you lose a leg walking out the door or something.

Members laughing.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - If you have done all those things, is the only reason your application could be refused that you have misrepresented something?

Mr PARKINSON - I am advised that normally the circumstances would not arise where you would be wanting your fee back. I am also advised that there have been cases in the past where people have failed to pay their tender fee by the due date and have pulled out for their own reasons but all of the administrative processes have been incurred, as it were, so they have not got their application fee back. Normally speaking, you would not be asking for your application fee back anyway because you would be accepted.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 -
(Owner-operator taxi licence conditions)

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - In this particular clause it talks about the owner-operator taxi licence conditions and when you get down to subclause (2)(b), the commission is to give the holder of the licence reasonable opportunity to make representation to the commission calculated in accordance with subclause (1). Can I have a definition of 'reasonable opportunity'? Is there a time frame connected to 'reasonable opportunity' in this particular instance? Do they receive a letter and they have seven days to respond, for instance?

Mr PARKINSON - I am advised that it is a lot more than seven days; it is usually in the order of 30 days, but longer if need be.

Mr WING - Mr Chairman, in bills such as this it is usual for there to be provisions giving the right of appeal against a rejection for an application for a licence and also as to conditions that may be imposed by a commission, for example. There is no provision for appeals in this legislation and we know that it is intended that that should be done by way of regulation.

I want to raise this now because it does relate to conditions and what I consider to be an inadequacy in this bill. If this bill is passed in its present form without any right of appeal or review provision and if it is attempted to give the right of appeal by way of regulation, I believe it would be the responsibility of the Subordinate Legislation Committee to reject that on the basis that conferring rights of appeal should be in legislation and not in delegated legislation. I think it is in the interests of the Government to give some consideration to this and I would suggest perhaps, even though we may finish all the provisions in this bill this evening, that the matter be adjourned so that consideration can be given to that. It would be unfortunate for the bill to go through and then to find that there is that deficiency which could be corrected by amendment in this House before it goes back to the Assembly. Once the third reading takes place, we have a bill with no appeal provisions, the first one that I have known, of this type, not to have provisions giving the right of appeal or review. I believe it cannot be done by regulation and should not be attempted to be done by regulation.

Mr Wilkinson - In the previous act, if you were classed as not being a fit and proper person, you had the ability to apply to the court to say that you were a fit and proper person and then the argument would be had in court to say whether you were or not. That is the appeal provision that you are talking about, isn't it?

[6.00 p.m.]
Mr WING - Yes, it was, but it should not be limited to that. It should be available on other grounds too -

Mr Wilkinson - I know what you are saying.

Mr WING - including, and that is why I raised it on this clause, an appeal against additional conditions that may be imposed which are considered unreasonable.

Mr Wilkinson - Because here you have the right to go to the commission, but then it is up to the commission what they do.

Mr WING - Yes, that is right. Quite so.

Mr PARKINSON - Mr Chairman, as has been explained several times during this process today, there are appeal provisions. Anybody can appeal an administrative decision to a magistrate. They are there under existing legislation. The appeal mechanism that we have been talking about, which will be set up by regulation, will be a complementary appeal mechanism which is far less formal than your ordinary administrative appeal process to a magistrate. It will be non-judicial. It is much more of a conciliation type of appeal process. It is quite appropriate for it to be established by regulation.

Ms Forrest - Who would that be managed by?

Mr PARKINSON - By the commission.

Ms Forrest - You have representation to the commission already and then you appeal to the commission?

Mr PARKINSON - You may wish to make a less costly appeal to the commission against a decision. If you are not happy with the outcome of that, you then have your ordinary appeal rights. But the honourable member for Launceston appears to be saying that there are no ordinary appeal rights in relation to this provision and that is not right.

Mr Wilkinson - Isn't it Caesar appealing to Caesar, though, because the commission handed down the condition in the first place and then you are appealing to that same body to change the condition? One could argue that there may be a conflict if that occurs because you have the person opposing the commission -

Mr PARKINSON - You are getting ahead of yourself. Now you are talking about regulations which are yet to come in. The appeal rights I am talking about are those that exist in existing legislation, appeal rights to a magistrate.

Mr Wing - So which specific provision are you referring to in existing legislation?

Mr PARKINSON - My advice is that it is the Administrative Appeals Act.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 -
(Cancellation of accreditation)

Mr FINCH - I am just going to continue this argument that has been put forward by the member for Launceston because this clause goes to the heart of this appeal situation. This clause provides for the cancellation of the accreditation of the whole of an owner-operator taxi licence, but there is not provision for an appeal to a magistrate about the cancellation.

The cancellation could have a serious financial impact on a person who would not only lose his income but also the benefit from his initial investment by way of tender for the licence. But I want to explore this situation that has been highlighted. I am a little uneasy about the fact that some provision for an appeal is not in this bill. The Leader has pointed to the administration act. What was the act that you pointed to, Leader?

Mr Wing - Administrative Appeals Act.

Mr FINCH - I am wondering whether there is some provision in the legislation relating to taxis, maybe the Passenger Transport Act 1997, the Transport Act 1991, or the Traffic Act 1925, that would cover the situation or whether there should be a provision in this bill. So I am in agreement with the member for Launceston that it is about policy and therefore it should be in this bill.

Mr Parkinson - This act has been operating for a long time. This act brings in the old act.

Mr FINCH - Okay, but is there not an appeal process? This is a new landscape that we are talking about. It is a new bill. We are talking about a situation where people will not have the opportunity to appeal. The advice that I sought -

Mr Parkinson - I think what we are saying is that they will have the opportunity to appeal.

Mr FINCH - Yes, the advice that I sought gave me quite a lot of cases. Should there be the right of appeal against such conditions? Should there be an avenue of appeal by the operator to a magistrate against such conditions? This advice to me is coming from a lawyer who spotted in the bill that there is no avenue for appeal, or not a strong situation in this bill for somebody to have the opportunity to appeal. So I am in agreement with the member for Launceston, even to the extent of maybe having an adjournment to consider this further. I think in clause 35 -

Ms Forrest - If you look at clause 36, it is a similar thing.

Mr FINCH - That is right. In clause '36(2)(b) it says:

'give the holder of the licence a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Commission regarding the proposed suspension or cancellation'.

But as the member for Nelson was saying, you are appealing to the same person who is going to cancel your licence, so there is no appeal process through the bill by which you can have it listened to by a different body.

Mr Aird - An independent body.

Mr FINCH - An independent body. So the advice that came to me was this concern about the opportunity to appeal.

Mr PARKINSON - The advice remains that one of the reasons that we passed a bill dealing with administrative appeal process was so that you do not have to duplicate the provisions in every bill that comes before the Parliament, so no existing appeal rights are being taken away.

Mr Wilkinson - Can you please tell us which act you are talking because none on the computer is Administrative Appeals Act. That is why I am wondering what it is; to see whether there is this provision within that act.

Mr PARKINSON - Have you checked what the process is in relation to the Administrative Appeals Act? I have not had the time as people have been passing the bill through committee, but you have.

Mr Wilkinson - I am trying to do so, that is what I am saying. As I understand your advice, you said that it was the Administrative Appeals Act and that is what I have been looking for but I cannot find it. That is why I am wondering whether that is the correct title of the act.

Mr PARKINSON - I gave the name that I was advised.

Mr Wilkinson - No, I am not criticising you. I am just trying to find it in that act, because if there is this provision that we are talking about there is no problem, it would seem to me. I am trying to pick up the act, look at the section within that act and therefore we can say this is within the act.

Mr PARKINSON - Do you need time to consider that?

Mr Wilkinson - That is what I am trying to find at the moment, yes.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended from 6.14 p.m. to 6.31 p.m.


TAXI AND LUXURY HIRE CAR INDUSTRIES BILL 2008 (No. 44)

In Committee


Clause 35 -
(Cancellation of accreditation)

Resumed from above.

Mr PARKINSON - Mr Chairman, the interlude was useful, so I thank the honourable member for Nelson for that. The appeal provisions that we are referring to are contained in the Judicial Review Act 2000, where section 4 says:

'Meaning of "decision to which this Act applies"

(1) In this Act,

"decision to which this Act applies" means a decision of an administrative character made, proposed to be made, or required to be made, under an enactment (whether or not in the exercise of a discretion).'

That is the main part there.

Mr Wilkinson - Section 17, isn't it?

Mr PARKINSON - Section 17 is the applicable application for review of decision provision. I do not believe I need to read it into Hansard, but section 17 of that act covers the field. As I indicated earlier, the appeal provisions to be made by regulation are a less formal provision, which other honourable members have already pointed out to me. In fact, I think the honourable member for Launceston pointed out to me that paragraph (o) in Schedule 5(1), the regulations, would provide the ability to make those regulations referring to an internal administrative appeal process. Some members have said, 'That is like Caesar appealing to Caesar', and it probably is, but it is meant to cover some of the decisions that may be considered unsatisfactory by people who may wish to have those reviewed. It is an internal, non-judicial way of resolving disputes but it does not prevent people from then still appealing in the normal way.

The honourable member for Launceston has suggested that an appropriate course of action may be for the Government to have discussions with Parliamentary Counsel with a view to making reference in future legislation to the existence of the appeal provisions that apply in the Judicial Review Act 2000. I can certainly indicate that I am prepared to initiate such discussions, to see if it would be appropriate to include a reference in future legislation.

Mr Wing - Thank you.

Mr FINCH - Leader, under the Judicial Review Act, can you give me some idea, please, how that process would take place? Does that come before a separate commission? Is there an opportunity to come before a magistrate?

Mr Parkinson - A magistrate.

Mr FINCH - A magistrate is involved and the case can be put?

Mr Parkinson - It is a court, yes.

Mr Wilkinson - What would occur is that it goes first to the commission if you have a beef. The commission then decides whether that is appropriate or not. If they decide against you, you go to a magistrate in the Magistrates Court arguing one of these points set out in section 17 of the Judicial Review Act.

Mr FINCH - I appreciate that and I am satisfied with that promise by the Leader.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 -
(Temporary taxi licence)

Mr WILKINSON - The briefings were helpful this morning. I understand that to date this year we have had the equivalent of five days of sitting time by way of briefings, so briefings obviously do assist and should be taken into account when looking at the work done by the Council.

Looking at temporary taxi licences, it says:

'A temporary taxi licence has the effect of an owner-operator taxi licence for the period for which it is in force and is not transferable.'

As I understand it, temporary taxi licenses can be granted from time to time. There has been a great deal of debate about whether there are too many taxis out there and that they do not want any more licenses, but try telling that to young teenagers who are on a taxi rank waiting for taxi to come home on an early Saturday or Sunday morning after having a night out.

My experience has shown that at times people can wait up to 45 minutes to an hour and a half for a taxi. That often occurs at busy times, Christmas time, Easter time and other public holidays, when people like to go out and celebrate. My understanding is that if there can be shown to be a need at certain times then a temporary taxi license can be granted to an appropriate applicant. As we were told during the briefing, this bill does not at this stage focus on the consumer but more on the owners of licenses and the operators. I understand from the briefing this morning that the next stage is to focus more on the consumer and how best for taxis to suit the consumer. The honourable member for Western Tiers stated that places in George Street in Launceston were called Festival Hall, because often you have people with a full head of steam up in the early hours of the morning waiting for taxis, people are jumping the lines and abusing one another at the rank, fights occur and it is a very ugly situation.

You also have people just standing there for a great deal of time waiting for taxis. They cannot get them and they do whatever they can to get home. That is not right either. I just raise it at clause 57 because it would good if those issues could be looked at. There could be a situation where extra taxis, or alternatively the taxis that already had the licences, could be guided into those hours. I can understand that at times people do not like it because people are full of bad manners in the early hours of the morning. I will not say what else the honourable member for Western Tiers said. I have abbreviated it. If you can clear the crowd, as the police would know, there is not going to be the trouble that occurs on our streets and it would be of great assistance, especially in places like Salamanca Place, where a number of people are causing trouble when they are standing there doing nothing, waiting for cabs.

Clause 57 agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 -
(Age of vehicle)

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - In clause 92 it talks about the age of a vehicle. Paragraph (a) is clear enough but paragraph (b) says:

'if no compliance plate is affixed to the vehicle ?'.

Can you please tell me where there would be an instance where you would have no compliance plate on a vehicle? I only have a limited understanding of compliance plates but I would expect that everyone would have to have a compliance plate on a vehicle, so I am wondering why this would be referenced.

Mr Parkinson - It could be missing for a whole range of reasons.

Ms Thorp - Fallen off.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - A compliance plate on a vehicle - fallen off?

Ms Thorp - They are those little ones.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - Is this just lifted out of the last act, and so this would be -

Ms Thorp - You know those little metal ones that are inside the bonnet.

Mrs RATTRAY-WAGNER - Hence I was of the understanding that every vehicle on the road had to have a compliance plate - and I am getting nods from up in the reserve that it is not a requirement. It is something I have learnt today, honourable Leader, thank you.

Clause 92 agreed to.

Clauses 93 to 95 agreed to.

Clause 96 -
(Person other than responsible operator must not provide taxi service)

Mr FINCH - It is interesting here:

'A person who is not the responsible operator of a taxi service must not provide or offer to provide a taxi service.'.

I am just wondering whether the provisions of this clause can be used against persons who might share the cost of the vehicle, let us say from Bell Bay, for instance, where there might be a group of workers.

Ms Thorp - Like car pooling.

Mr FINCH - Like car pooling. Do you know what I mean? There might be a car pooling situation where somebody says, 'I will take my car this week and we all chip in $10 for the petrol and the maintenance for my car'. It seems that this section sort of relegates against the Government's espousal of our need for conservation of greenhouse emissions by multiple persons using one vehicle on a journey to a similar destination.

Ms Forrest - Would that be considered a taxi service though?

Ms Thorp - No.

Mr FINCH - Well, that is what I am seeking clarification of: if people are doing that are they acting contrary to what is in this clause 96?

Mr PARKINSON - Car pooling is legal and this provision refers to responsible operators. They are defined in the definition in relation to a taxi licence, meaning the person recorded on the register of licences as the responsible operator of the taxi licence authorised by that licence. So it is creating an offence, basically, where a person makes themselves out to be a responsible operator of a taxi service if they are not the registered responsible operator.

Clause 96 agreed to.

Clause 97 to 105 agreed to.



Schedule 1 -
(Criteria for wheelchair-accessible taxis, remote area wheelchair-accessible taxis and substitute wheelchair-accessible taxis)

Mr DEAN - I want to raise a point on page 90 and subclause (3) and to understand that a little better:

'The Commission may approve a vehicle that is more 7 years old and less than 10 years old' -

in certain circumstances.

Mr Parkinson - That is the WAT vehicle.

Mr DEAN - Yes, we are referring to the WAT vehicles. So if the commission approves, say, a vehicle that is nine years and 11 months old, how long can that approval be given for? Is there an end to that - it is a substitute vehicle? Is that simply an arbitrary figure plucked out by the commission or is there some other controlling system?

[6.45 p.m.]
Mr PARKINSON - My advice is that this is about substitute taxis. If you go back to page 89:

'The Commission may approve a vehicle that is more than 12 months old and less than 10 years old for use as a wheelchair-accessible taxi if the Commission has previously approved that vehicle for use as a wheelchair-accessible taxi.'

Mr Dean - Then the next one says 'substitute'.

Mr PARKINSON - It says:

'more than 7 years old and less than 10 years old for use as a substitute wheelchair-accessible taxi' -

What is your question?

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - How long can that wheelchair-accessible taxi operate under that clause - in other words, where it has been identified as a substitute taxi? My position was that under that subclause the commission can provide a licence for a substitute taxi to operate between the seven and 10 years. If a WAT is nine years and 11 months old, how long can that vehicle continue to operate as a substitute WAT in those circumstances? Is there a limit to the time?

Mr Parkinson - Ten years is the limit.

Mr DEAN - Where does it say that?

Mr Parkinson - It says, 'more than 7 years old and less than 10 years old'.

Mr DEAN - But it says here:

'The Commission may approve a vehicle that is more than 7 years old and less than 10 years old for use as a substitute wheelchair-accessible taxi'.

Is that the way you read that? Once it reaches the 10 years that is it? So if it is nine years and 29 days it can be a substitute for one day only?

Mr Parkinson - The honourable member for Launceston wouldn't get a licence.

Mr Wing - I agree with the Leader's interpretation.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 -
(Reserve prices for owner-operator taxi licences)

Mr FINCH - in this schedule it sets out the reserve prices for owner-operator taxi licences. I wonder if the Leader could share with us what statistical or financial basis was used to calculate the prices. They seem to be interesting figures and I would like to get some indication of how these prices were set. I am assuming these prices are fixed and they cannot be altered except by legislation. A follow-on question to that would be: are these set for review? Does this legislation come up every 10 years and are they reviewed then or will they be reviewed beforehand? I would like some idea, please, as to how the prices were set and when they are likely to be reviewed?

Mr PARKINSON - The amounts are not set for review. They were set by a process of negotiation with the industry. My advice is that the industry wanted the figures to be as high as possible - in other words, they wanted them to be the same as the perpetual licences, for obvious reasons. Initially, the commission's idea was to have them at zero but over a process of consultation and negotiating with the industry these figures were arrived at and they are not set for review.

Mrs JAMIESON - To follow on with that with item (y), where it says 'any other area not included above at a price', presumably, say, somewhere in the Hobart area it would be a $60 000 one; if it was on the west coast it would be a $1 000 fee.

Mr Parkinson - Yes, and the reason for that provision, as indicated in the second reading speech, was to allow for areas such as the Campbell Town area, for example.

Mrs JAMIESON - I do not have a problem with that but I am just presuming that it would be a comparable area, that the price would be comparable if it was in a particular area. For example, if somebody popped up in the Port Sorell area it would be, say, $23 000 because that is the Devonport area.

Mr PARKINSON - I will take some further advice. There are a small number of areas in the State that are not covered by existing taxi areas. Campbell Town apparently is one of them. The rate would be set by reference to the rates around.

Mr FINCH - Just a clarification, Leader, if you would, please. You were saying that these prices were going to start at zero and they have been driven up by the industry representatives to the figures that we see here. Can you just give me a sense of the consultation on the other side, maybe from people who were thinking about purchasing licences. How is the feeling now? In the industry, are they happy where they have been set? You were suggesting they should have been higher. Are other people who might be going into the business happy with the way these prices have been set? Did you suggest that there has been an example of these licences being put on the market and being purchased at these prices? Not yet? Leader, if you could respond to this.

Mr PARKINSON - While you were speaking I was just looking at the clause note that indicates that these lower amounts explicitly recognise that owner-operator licences do not attract the same rights as perpetual licences. Owner-operator licences are not personal property, cannot be leased and can be cancelled without compensation so obviously it is reasonable to expect that they would be at a rate lower than the market rate for perpetual licences. Obviously, market forces will come into play here again but I will just take some further advice.

It is a balanced consideration based on all of the consultations and discussion we had over the period of time. As was said in the second reading speech, I recall, without specifically going back to the words, it is meant to be attractive enough for the genuine prospective purchasers who wish to come in and operate businesses and do not just want to come in and cherry-pick; they will be genuinely wishing to set up a business. To some extent it is subjective, but it had to be set somewhere between zero and the upper limit of a perpetual licence, which would have been entirely inappropriate and generally the figures are considered to be agreeable.

Mr FINCH - On that point, Leader, you say it is not open to review. What if some of these figures are cockamamie in respect of people trying to run a business or trying to establish a business and find that those prices charged for these licences are not really building them a good business case? The figures of $60 000 for Launceston might be too much and you will not have the take-up. So at what point -

Mr Parkinson - It is $35 000 for Launceston.

Mr FINCH - Sorry, $60 000 for Hobart and $35 000 for Launceston. At what point, though, do you have a review of the situation to allow the opportunity to find out whether those prices that have been set are agreeable to the market? I am just highlighting this fact that because there is no review -

Mr Parkinson - If they are too high they will not be purchased, will they?

Mr FINCH - Yes, but the point is, could a review then set it at a market price that could be acceptable? Will we review this legislation in 10 years' time? Is that the opportunity? Will we reassess the legislation to see whether it should continue in this form?

Mr Wilkinson - Are you saying these should be in regulations that can be looked at?

Mr FINCH - If that is a mechanism to enable it to be reviewed.

Ms Thorp - It is only a reserve price.

Mr FINCH - Yes, what I am highlighting is this review process.

Ms Thorp - It is only the reserve price, it is not the set price.

Mr Parkinson - I am sure you realised that, though.

Mr FINCH - Yes, of course. I will sit down.

Ms FORREST - Mr Chairman, before the member for Rosevears rose for his second and third call, I was going to raise that normally we see the setting of fees in regulations, and this is basically a fee for purchasing a licence, and the regulations are reviewed, even after 10 years, so it gives that process for review, particularly in the area of costs. Why do we have this in the legislation when we have had the discussion about the policy decisions about appeal rights which should be in the legislation rather than regulations? In my mind, it would be better sitting in the regulation rather than the legislation because it has a greater degree of flexibility as far as adjusting them upwards or downwards, depending on -

Mr Parkinson - I do not know if you are right in saying that these generally are set by regulation. Variations in fees are set by regulation. Generally, they are set by statute first and then increases will be -

Mr Wing - Generally by regulation, so it can give the flexibility the honourable member is speaking of, otherwise you need an amended bill; a CPI increase requires an amendment.

Ms Thorp - Not when you are talking about reserve prices.

[7.00 p.m.]
Ms FORREST - The reserve price is the price at which they are put out if they do not sell. How it works within the legislation as I read it is that you put so many licences up for tender. I might tender for one in Hobart for $80 000 and think I will get it for that. Somebody else might think it could be only $70 000 so I am going to win over them, obviously. If only two are sold through the tender process, there are still three that sit on the table, for want of a better word, at $60 000. If they do not sell they then sit at that price on the counter so it is obvious that there is not a demand for them.

Ms Thorp - And at the end of the year they get torn up.

Ms FORREST - Yes, at the end of the year they get torn up. But if someone comes along later in the year, say they have come from interstate and they want to get into the industry, they can buy it at $60 000 because that is the reserve price. So the reserve price is the price that is the lowest price to be accepted in a tender obviously but it is also the price they could be sold at in the future, later in that year if someone decides they want to take it up and they have not sold in that round of tenders. So that is why I argue that it really should be in regulation so they can be adjusted if necessary.

Ms Thorp - Up or down.

Ms FORREST - Up or down, depending on the market. I find it strange to see it in legislation as opposed to regulation.

Mr PARKINSON - I think that if honourable members think about it, it is going into legislation because there is a new system being set up and it is being set up by consultation and negotiation with the industry. I will not go over that again. It is a new system being set up, it will be seen to be working or not working once it is under way. If it is not working it will be reviewed very quickly because there will be a lot of complaints and we will know about it. and it will come back to the Parliament.

Ms Forrest - Will there be reference in the regulations to the reviewing of the reserve price and how that process will occur? Would that be considered in the regulations?

Mr PARKINSON - No, it is not planned to be at this stage. These rates are set. If you envisage inflation over a period of time, these rates will, as they stand now, become less and less. So it will be easier and easier, from an affordability point of view. People will still have to satisfy all the other criteria but at least for affordability it will be easier and easier. But if the system is not working, I repeat that it will come back to the Parliament and we will be back here talking about it.

Schedule 3 agreed to and bill taken through the remainder of the Committee stage.