Ministry Transport Nonsense

1 September 2009

Following a meeting today with Ministry of Transport Representatives and our Association, it seems that the MoT is reluctant to claim responsibility for this situation and advise that they have no power over the lessee of a taxi plate regarding these insurance matters that have been brought to their attention.

Reasonably, they cannot oblige the Insurance Policy holder to make a claim. But nor do they seem ready to follow up on the “Driver to be indemnified” issues.

The only power the Ministry says it has is over the registered “owner” or licensee of the plate, who in the instance of the leased plate, is not the accredited operator.

The Ministry representative has advised that we should pursue this matter with the N.S.W. Industrial Relations Commission as a breach of the Contract Determination. We are trying to contact the Office of Industrial Relations and will advise of the outcome.

The Ministry’s position on this matter seems strange as in all other breaches of the Act, the Ministry appears able to enforce the Act against the accredited operator / lessee of the taxi plate and not only against the licensee or the investor plate “owner”.

The issue remains for taxi drivers who have legal action against them, and as a wider issue, the reality of indemnity for the other 12,000 bailee taxi drivers .

Is the cabbie covered ???

Michael Jools

President

Australian Taxi Drivers Association.

Natural Justice

Cabbies are bush lawyers. Most of us have an answer to just about everything, and with the passenger as a captive audience, we are always ready to give and / or express our ‘considered’ opinion. Here is a new topic.
In a Criminal Court, the accused’s prior record is not part of the process. If a jury finds the person guilty, the Court can then be given the record of the individual and the Judge can take that history into account in his sentencing.
But if action TV is our source of information, the past record does not impact on current issues.
Not so for the Ministry of Transport and its determinations.
All your records of complaints and indiscretions are made available to whoever it is that investigates complaints, including all those matters considered ‘unjustified’ or ‘no further action required’. It even includes matters where, having gone to Court and having the charges dismissed, the complaint is still on file. Worse, since you have no access to that file, you have no idea what matters are been considered.
As a bunch of bush lawyers, it seems to us that only the proven and established facts should be on record.
Anything less should not be available, or on the records, used to establish a “profile”.
It may well be the case that a driver has string of complaints about whatever, but unless a particular instance has a valid complaint, it should not be on his file. And, on the way, the driver should be able to see his file. In many cases the driver is not even aware of complaints made.
Natural Justice and procedural fairness.
And how about how long ? We are currently arguing on behalf of a driver, whose record of what might have happened twenty five years ago is being used as a justification for current MoT action. This is simply not reasonable.
And, at the same time, if a driver has a fare evasion about which he would like to see the MoT taking action …. Forget it.
The ATDA is helping in an assault charge against a driver who threw a light aluminum chair, in the interest of getting community involvement, in the general direction of two fare evaders who had assaulted him and has had absolutely zero support from the MoT.
The issue of assault and fare evasion has been forgotten. Why ???
Who cares about cabbies ????
“ Oh, it’s a Police Matter, not our problem……”

Kings of the Road

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission will have an Award, from January 1st 2010 as the Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award, which covers taxi drivers who are employees.

It will be the law of the land and of the road.

It will provide the same basic conditions and entitlements for taxi drivers as for any other Australian worker. A minimum hourly rate of $16.00 for a 38 hour week. Penalty rates for overtime, weekend and public holidays. Annual Leave, Sick Leave, Superannuation and Insurance – even Parental Leave. And payment of income tax.

Will it actually cover the 60,000 or so taxi drivers in Australia ?? Maybe …

Historically, taxi drivers exist in a special relationship of being a bailee under a “contract of bailment” with a bailor taxi operator. That contract, which in almost all cases is an unsigned and unrecorded verbal agreement, is a contract to bail a vehicle for a period of time, between nine and twelve hours, and to use the vehicle to ply for hire as a taxi.

The bailment agreement is for the bailee to pay the bailor a percentage of the net fares or an agreed amount per shift. The various Industrial Relations bodies, especially in NSW, have managed to express this payment from driver to operator as being the same as remuneration paid from operator to driver, as required under the Taxi Drivers Contract Determination.

As such, the agreement to bail the vehicle is but one part of the relationship.

The fundamental issue is whether taxi drivers are employees.

Certainly we are “deemed employees” for Workers Compensation, Annual Leave and a raft of other entitlements. But are we “employees” ??

The Contract Determination says “no”. ( In Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong)

The High Court, in relation to any obligation for a taxi operator to withhold and pay the driver’s income tax to the Australian Taxation Office, says “no”.
But the operator never held the revenue from fares, nor did he pay wages.

The Taxi Council Limited in NSW says ”no”.

Operators will be at pains to establish that no employee / employer relationship exists and will point to the Taxi Drivers Contract Determination, applicable to drivers in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong only, to validate that claim. The problem is that that the Determination was made in 1984 and has never been updated, and in 2009 it is unequivocally an “unfair contract”.

Under “Fair Work” minimum conditions it is an “unfair determination”.

To be a “permanent driver” requires a minimum of 45 hour a week, or more like 60 hours. A casual driver has no set-offs or compensations.

There are many more examples of it now being an “unfair contract”. A major flaw is that the set pay-in and fuel costs are much more than 50% of fares.

If we are employee’s, then there is no issue. The AIRC Award shall apply.

If we are not, we should be. Only as employees will we ever get the sort of industrial protection available to all other workers. Only if we are paid an hourly wage rate can we be sure of earning at least a minimum wage.

In 1996 the NSW Industrial Relations Act was amended to include Chapter 6 relating to Contacts of Bailment and Contracts of Carriage. The intention of Parliament, and of the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr. Geoff Shaw QC was to bring taxi drivers within the ambit, coverage and protection of the Industrial Relations System. Subsequent amendments have all highlighted the predicament of taxi drivers as lacking the protection given all other workers, and as a solution, deeming them to be employees within the NSW system, and for all references to employment to be taken as a reference to bailment. Regrettably the 1984 Contract determination has never been updated, despite a general requirement to do so, to properly reflect that intent.

Applying as it does to Australian Taxi Drivers the new AIRC Award will resolve all those issues. The ATDA has suggested a bailment formula to the AIRC which also gives a shared benefit to driver and operator from above average fare revenue, and recognizes the particular circumstances of taxi driving.

But ….

The real issue is that this Award may not be practicable in the current state of the industry. It may be fair and just, but it may not work.

The current fare structure simply cannot support an “employee driver”, not with all the legal entitlements and penalty rates, as well as the current operating costs.

Even if there was some way of ensuring that taxi drivers were actively seeking work, or of ensuring that every fare was recorded, there is no way of ensuring enough trips to provide revenue to cover all current expenses.

For an Operator to pay out $180 plus, per shift as wages to a day driver is not realistic. For an Operator to pay out $400 plus, per shift as wages to a Sunday day driver is not possible. For night shift drivers it’s even worse.


Not when average fares on a day shift are $200, and on a night shift are from $250 on Monday to $600 on Friday.

Not when operating costs are $95,045 a year to be split over the 450 shifts determined by IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which effectively sets fares (and pay-in’s ) in NSW, as the work pattern of an average taxi.


It can work if a few of the critical variables were modified absolutely, or conjointly:

If fares went up by a third to about $30.00 an average trip.
If average trips in an average shift were 20 trips.
If “Plate Lease Fees” were a Government fee of $2000 a year.

…. and pigs might fly …

It would be assisted by an impartial review of costs, which curiously have decreased in the Taxi Cost Index of IPART from over $100,000 in 2001 to $85,766 in 2009, net of non-existent entitlements.

If Insurance costs were re-assessed.
If Network Fees were examined

….. and elephants might fly also ….

A curious statistical sleight of hand has seen pay-in rates increase each year notwithstanding a continued downwards trend in actual Operator costs.
……………………………………………………………..

There is another side to the all of this …..

IPART has determined a fare structure which meets the criteria of covering the costs of providing a taxi service in NSW. IPART posits that an average taxi is operated by an owner/driver and it works five days and five nights a week for 45 weeks a year. IPART posits that in an average nine hour shift the taxi makes nineteen trips at an average fare of $21.88, or $416 per shift, exclusive of tolls and tips.

An average revenue of $187,075 is thereby generated.

The maximum pay-in, as per the Contract Determination, and as increased by IPART”s determination, is $170 per shift and, or $76,850 a year. That is the maximum sum total of revenue received by an operator bailing his taxi on Method II fixed pay-in. The well established fact that no driver pays, nor does any operator receive this amount, is of no concern to IPART.

With IPART’s figures of Fuel, Wash and other expenses added, ($20,782) but not the GST component which IPART still ignores, that establishes a maximum driver cost of $97,632.

An operators ‘operating costs’ of $95,045 is determined by IPART, including payment of the drivers Annual Leave ($9269). As ever before, that this amount is well in excess of revenue received by the operator, with or without Annual Leave obligations, actual or fictitiously ideal is of equal unconcern to IPART.

That the ATDA strongly disagrees with the IPART analysis and refutes the statistical input is not at issue at this point. We will assume the validity of those figures, even though they fly in the face of hard evidence provided.

In the potential situation of an Operator being entitled to collect, from the employed driver, all the fare revenue of $416 per shift and to pay wages of $16.00 an hour (plus penalty rates) totaling about $150 per nine hour week day or night shift, and all the operating expenses, totaling $212 on 450 shifts (or realistically, $158 per shift on 600 shifts,) it is workable. It even allows for a split of revenue in excess of average for any one shift.

If urban fares were increased on weekends and public holiday’s, as occurs in Country NSW, the penalty rates for those shifts would also be affordable.

The problem is that the average fare is not $21.88; nor are there 19 trips in an average shift; nor is the average shift of 9 hours. But those are the datum upon which IPART has determined a “fair” fare, and equally important that is the basis on which Operators have been happy to take pay-in increases.

Reality is that the average fare is about $20.00 ; there are now 10 trips in an average 9 hour day shift; and 30 trips on a 12 hour Friday night and the average cab works 600 shifts a year with two bailee drivers.

On that current basis the industry cannot afford to employ taxi drivers.

We need to review the variables and re-balance the interests of passengers and drivers, and of operators against the interests of the plate investors and networks, who contribute very little, but have major rewards.

No longer should the taxi driver as a worker, be he an employee or a bailee or both, bear the burden of an average hourly earning rate of $12.50 and be obliged to work five shifts of twelve hours to keep his job.

And nor should an operator bear all the risks. There must be a way forward, which ensures a “fair share of a fair fare” to all participants.

One way is for the average fare to increase to $25 ; for a better job system to lift jobs to an average of 20 per shift ; and for Government to open up an owner / driver plate license at the $2000 a year discount now available to fully accessible WATS type vehicles.

And to unequivocally classify taxi drivers as employees under a contract of bailment, with the obligations, benefits and protection of an industrial award.


Long winded commentary by

Michael Jools
President
Australian Taxi Drivers Association
Sunday, August 23, 2009

Kings of the Road

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission will have an Award, from January 1st 2010 as the Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award, which covers taxi drivers who are employees.

It will be the law of the land and of the road.

It will provide the same basic conditions and entitlements for taxi drivers as for any other Australian worker. A minimum hourly rate of $16.00 for a 38 hour week. Penalty rates for overtime, weekend and public holidays. Annual Leave, Sick Leave, Superannuation and Insurance – even Parental Leave. And payment of income tax.

Will it actually cover the 60,000 or so taxi drivers in Australia ?? Maybe …

Historically, taxi drivers exist in a special relationship of being a bailee under a “contract of bailment” with a bailor taxi operator. That contract, which in almost all cases is an unsigned and unrecorded verbal agreement, is a contract to bail a vehicle for a period of time, between nine and twelve hours, and to use the vehicle to ply for hire as a taxi.

The bailment agreement is for the bailee to pay the bailor a percentage of the net fares or an agreed amount per shift. The various Industrial Relations bodies, especially in NSW, have managed to express this payment from driver to operator as being the same as remuneration paid from operator to driver, as required under the Taxi Drivers Contract Determination.

As such, the agreement to bail the vehicle is but one part of the relationship.

The fundamental issue is whether taxi drivers are employees.

Certainly we are “deemed employees” for Workers Compensation, Annual Leave and a raft of other entitlements. But are we “employees” ??

The Contract Determination says “no”. ( In Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong)

The High Court, in relation to any obligation for a taxi operator to withhold and pay the driver’s income tax to the Australian Taxation Office, says “no”.
But the operator never held the revenue from fares, nor did he pay wages.

The Taxi Council Limited in NSW says ”no”.

Operators will be at pains to establish that no employee / employer relationship exists and will point to the Taxi Drivers Contract Determination, applicable to drivers in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong only, to validate that claim. The problem is that that the Determination was made in 1984 and has never been updated, and in 2009 it is unequivocally an “unfair contract”.

Under “Fair Work” minimum conditions it is an “unfair determination”.

To be a “permanent driver” requires a minimum of 45 hour a week, or more like 60 hours. A casual driver has no set-offs or compensations.

There are many more examples of it now being an “unfair contract”. A major flaw is that the set pay-in and fuel costs are much more than 50% of fares.

If we are employee’s, then there is no issue. The AIRC Award shall apply.

If we are not, we should be. Only as employees will we ever get the sort of industrial protection available to all other workers. Only if we are paid an hourly wage rate can we be sure of earning at least a minimum wage.

In 1996 the NSW Industrial Relations Act was amended to include Chapter 6 relating to Contacts of Bailment and Contracts of Carriage. The intention of Parliament, and of the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr. Geoff Shaw QC was to bring taxi drivers within the ambit, coverage and protection of the Industrial Relations System. Subsequent amendments have all highlighted the predicament of taxi drivers as lacking the protection given all other workers, and as a solution, deeming them to be employees within the NSW system, and for all references to employment to be taken as a reference to bailment. Regrettably the 1984 Contract determination has never been updated, despite a general requirement to do so, to properly reflect that intent.

Applying as it does to Australian Taxi Drivers the new AIRC Award will resolve all those issues. The ATDA has suggested a bailment formula to the AIRC which also gives a shared benefit to driver and operator from above average fare revenue, and recognizes the particular circumstances of taxi driving.

But ….

The real issue is that this Award may not be practicable in the current state of the industry. It may be fair and just, but it may not work.

The current fare structure simply cannot support an “employee driver”, not with all the legal entitlements and penalty rates, as well as the current operating costs.

Even if there was some way of ensuring that taxi drivers were actively seeking work, or of ensuring that every fare was recorded, there is no way of ensuring enough trips to provide revenue to cover all current expenses.

For an Operator to pay out $180 plus, per shift as wages to a day driver is not realistic. For an Operator to pay out $400 plus, per shift as wages to a Sunday day driver is not possible. For night shift drivers it’s even worse.


Not when average fares on a day shift are $200, and on a night shift are from $250 on Monday to $600 on Friday.

Not when operating costs are $95,045 a year to be split over the 450 shifts determined by IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which effectively sets fares (and pay-in’s ) in NSW, as the work pattern of an average taxi.


It can work if a few of the critical variables were modified absolutely, or conjointly:

If fares went up by a third to about $30.00 an average trip.
If average trips in an average shift were 20 trips.
If “Plate Lease Fees” were a Government fee of $2000 a year.

…. and pigs might fly …

It would be assisted by an impartial review of costs, which curiously have decreased in the Taxi Cost Index of IPART from over $100,000 in 2001 to $85,766 in 2009, net of non-existent entitlements.

If Insurance costs were re-assessed.
If Network Fees were examined

….. and elephants might fly also ….

A curious statistical sleight of hand has seen pay-in rates increase each year notwithstanding a continued downwards trend in actual Operator costs.
……………………………………………………………..

There is another side to the all of this …..

IPART has determined a fare structure which meets the criteria of covering the costs of providing a taxi service in NSW. IPART posits that an average taxi is operated by an owner/driver and it works five days and five nights a week for 45 weeks a year. IPART posits that in an average nine hour shift the taxi makes nineteen trips at an average fare of $21.88, or $416 per shift, exclusive of tolls and tips.

An average revenue of $187,075 is thereby generated.

The maximum pay-in, as per the Contract Determination, and as increased by IPART”s determination, is $170 per shift and, or $76,850 a year. That is the maximum sum total of revenue received by an operator bailing his taxi on Method II fixed pay-in. The well established fact that no driver pays, nor does any operator receive this amount, is of no concern to IPART.

With IPART’s figures of Fuel, Wash and other expenses added, ($20,782) but not the GST component which IPART still ignores, that establishes a maximum driver cost of $97,632.

An operators ‘operating costs’ of $95,045 is determined by IPART, including payment of the drivers Annual Leave ($9269). As ever before, that this amount is well in excess of revenue received by the operator, with or without Annual Leave obligations, actual or fictitiously ideal is of equal unconcern to IPART.

That the ATDA strongly disagrees with the IPART analysis and refutes the statistical input is not at issue at this point. We will assume the validity of those figures, even though they fly in the face of hard evidence provided.

In the potential situation of an Operator being entitled to collect, from the employed driver, all the fare revenue of $416 per shift and to pay wages of $16.00 an hour (plus penalty rates) totaling about $150 per nine hour week day or night shift, and all the operating expenses, totaling $212 on 450 shifts (or realistically, $158 per shift on 600 shifts,) it is workable. It even allows for a split of revenue in excess of average for any one shift.

If urban fares were increased on weekends and public holiday’s, as occurs in Country NSW, the penalty rates for those shifts would also be affordable.

The problem is that the average fare is not $21.88; nor are there 19 trips in an average shift; nor is the average shift of 9 hours. But those are the datum upon which IPART has determined a “fair” fare, and equally important that is the basis on which Operators have been happy to take pay-in increases.

Reality is that the average fare is about $20.00 ; there are now 10 trips in an average 9 hour day shift; and 30 trips on a 12 hour Friday night and the average cab works 600 shifts a year with two bailee drivers.

On that current basis the industry cannot afford to employ taxi drivers.

We need to review the variables and re-balance the interests of passengers and drivers, and of operators against the interests of the plate investors and networks, who contribute very little, but have major rewards.

No longer should the taxi driver as a worker, be he an employee or a bailee or both, bear the burden of an average hourly earning rate of $12.50 and be obliged to work five shifts of twelve hours to keep his job.

And nor should an operator bear all the risks. There must be a way forward, which ensures a “fair share of a fair fare” to all participants.

One way is for the average fare to increase to $25 ; for a better job system to lift jobs to an average of 20 per shift ; and for Government to open up an owner / driver plate license at the $2000 a year discount now available to fully accessible WATS type vehicles.

And to unequivocally classify taxi drivers as employees under a contract of bailment, with the obligations, benefits and protection of an industrial award.


Long winded commentary by

Michael Jools
President
Australian Taxi Drivers Association
Sunday, August 23, 2009

Kings of the Road

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission will have an Award, from January 1st 2010 as the Passenger Vehicle Transportation Award, which covers taxi drivers who are employees.

It will be the law of the land and of the road.

It will provide the same basic conditions and entitlements for taxi drivers as for any other Australian worker. A minimum hourly rate of $16.00 for a 38 hour week. Penalty rates for overtime, weekend and public holidays. Annual Leave, Sick Leave, Superannuation and Insurance – even Parental Leave. And payment of income tax.

Will it actually cover the 60,000 or so taxi drivers in Australia ?? Maybe …

Historically, taxi drivers exist in a special relationship of being a bailee under a “contract of bailment” with a bailor taxi operator. That contract, which in almost all cases is an unsigned and unrecorded verbal agreement, is a contract to bail a vehicle for a period of time, between nine and twelve hours, and to use the vehicle to ply for hire as a taxi.

The bailment agreement is for the bailee to pay the bailor a percentage of the net fares or an agreed amount per shift. The various Industrial Relations bodies, especially in NSW, have managed to express this payment from driver to operator as being the same as remuneration paid from operator to driver, as required under the Taxi Drivers Contract Determination.

As such, the agreement to bail the vehicle is but one part of the relationship.

The fundamental issue is whether taxi drivers are employees.

Certainly we are “deemed employees” for Workers Compensation, Annual Leave and a raft of other entitlements. But are we “employees” ??

The Contract Determination says “no”. ( In Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong)

The High Court, in relation to any obligation for a taxi operator to withhold and pay the driver’s income tax to the Australian Taxation Office, says “no”.
But the operator never held the revenue from fares, nor did he pay wages.

The Taxi Council Limited in NSW says ”no”.

Operators will be at pains to establish that no employee / employer relationship exists and will point to the Taxi Drivers Contract Determination, applicable to drivers in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong only, to validate that claim. The problem is that that the Determination was made in 1984 and has never been updated, and in 2009 it is unequivocally an “unfair contract”.

Under “Fair Work” minimum conditions it is an “unfair determination”.

To be a “permanent driver” requires a minimum of 45 hour a week, or more like 60 hours. A casual driver has no set-offs or compensations.

There are many more examples of it now being an “unfair contract”. A major flaw is that the set pay-in and fuel costs are much more than 50% of fares.

If we are employee’s, then there is no issue. The AIRC Award shall apply.

If we are not, we should be. Only as employees will we ever get the sort of industrial protection available to all other workers. Only if we are paid an hourly wage rate can we be sure of earning at least a minimum wage.

In 1996 the NSW Industrial Relations Act was amended to include Chapter 6 relating to Contacts of Bailment and Contracts of Carriage. The intention of Parliament, and of the then Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr. Geoff Shaw QC was to bring taxi drivers within the ambit, coverage and protection of the Industrial Relations System. Subsequent amendments have all highlighted the predicament of taxi drivers as lacking the protection given all other workers, and as a solution, deeming them to be employees within the NSW system, and for all references to employment to be taken as a reference to bailment. Regrettably the 1984 Contract determination has never been updated, despite a general requirement to do so, to properly reflect that intent.

Applying as it does to Australian Taxi Drivers the new AIRC Award will resolve all those issues. The ATDA has suggested a bailment formula to the AIRC which also gives a shared benefit to driver and operator from above average fare revenue, and recognizes the particular circumstances of taxi driving.

But ….

The real issue is that this Award may not be practicable in the current state of the industry. It may be fair and just, but it may not work.

The current fare structure simply cannot support an “employee driver”, not with all the legal entitlements and penalty rates, as well as the current operating costs.

Even if there was some way of ensuring that taxi drivers were actively seeking work, or of ensuring that every fare was recorded, there is no way of ensuring enough trips to provide revenue to cover all current expenses.

For an Operator to pay out $180 plus, per shift as wages to a day driver is not realistic. For an Operator to pay out $400 plus, per shift as wages to a Sunday day driver is not possible. For night shift drivers it’s even worse.


Not when average fares on a day shift are $200, and on a night shift are from $250 on Monday to $600 on Friday.

Not when operating costs are $95,045 a year to be split over the 450 shifts determined by IPART, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, which effectively sets fares (and pay-in’s ) in NSW, as the work pattern of an average taxi.


It can work if a few of the critical variables were modified absolutely, or conjointly:

If fares went up by a third to about $30.00 an average trip.
If average trips in an average shift were 20 trips.
If “Plate Lease Fees” were a Government fee of $2000 a year.

…. and pigs might fly …

It would be assisted by an impartial review of costs, which curiously have decreased in the Taxi Cost Index of IPART from over $100,000 in 2001 to $85,766 in 2009, net of non-existent entitlements.

If Insurance costs were re-assessed.
If Network Fees were examined

….. and elephants might fly also ….

A curious statistical sleight of hand has seen pay-in rates increase each year notwithstanding a continued downwards trend in actual Operator costs.
……………………………………………………………..

There is another side to the all of this …..

IPART has determined a fare structure which meets the criteria of covering the costs of providing a taxi service in NSW. IPART posits that an average taxi is operated by an owner/driver and it works five days and five nights a week for 45 weeks a year. IPART posits that in an average nine hour shift the taxi makes nineteen trips at an average fare of $21.88, or $416 per shift, exclusive of tolls and tips.

An average revenue of $187,075 is thereby generated.

The maximum pay-in, as per the Contract Determination, and as increased by IPART”s determination, is $170 per shift and, or $76,850 a year. That is the maximum sum total of revenue received by an operator bailing his taxi on Method II fixed pay-in. The well established fact that no driver pays, nor does any operator receive this amount, is of no concern to IPART.

With IPART’s figures of Fuel, Wash and other expenses added, ($20,782) but not the GST component which IPART still ignores, that establishes a maximum driver cost of $97,632.

An operators ‘operating costs’ of $95,045 is determined by IPART, including payment of the drivers Annual Leave ($9269). As ever before, that this amount is well in excess of revenue received by the operator, with or without Annual Leave obligations, actual or fictitiously ideal is of equal unconcern to IPART.

That the ATDA strongly disagrees with the IPART analysis and refutes the statistical input is not at issue at this point. We will assume the validity of those figures, even though they fly in the face of hard evidence provided.

In the potential situation of an Operator being entitled to collect, from the employed driver, all the fare revenue of $416 per shift and to pay wages of $16.00 an hour (plus penalty rates) totaling about $150 per nine hour week day or night shift, and all the operating expenses, totaling $212 on 450 shifts (or realistically, $158 per shift on 600 shifts,) it is workable. It even allows for a split of revenue in excess of average for any one shift.

If urban fares were increased on weekends and public holiday’s, as occurs in Country NSW, the penalty rates for those shifts would also be affordable.

The problem is that the average fare is not $21.88; nor are there 19 trips in an average shift; nor is the average shift of 9 hours. But those are the datum upon which IPART has determined a “fair” fare, and equally important that is the basis on which Operators have been happy to take pay-in increases.

Reality is that the average fare is about $20.00 ; there are now 10 trips in an average 9 hour day shift; and 30 trips on a 12 hour Friday night and the average cab works 600 shifts a year with two bailee drivers.

On that current basis the industry cannot afford to employ taxi drivers.

We need to review the variables and re-balance the interests of passengers and drivers, and of operators against the interests of the plate investors and networks, who contribute very little, but have major rewards.

No longer should the taxi driver as a worker, be he an employee or a bailee or both, bear the burden of an average hourly earning rate of $12.50 and be obliged to work five shifts of twelve hours to keep his job.

And nor should an operator bear all the risks. There must be a way forward, which ensures a “fair share of a fair fare” to all participants.

One way is for the average fare to increase to $25 ; for a better job system to lift jobs to an average of 20 per shift ; and for Government to open up an owner / driver plate license at the $2000 a year discount now available to fully accessible WATS type vehicles.

And to unequivocally classify taxi drivers as employees under a contract of bailment, with the obligations, benefits and protection of an industrial award.


Long winded commentary by

Michael Jools
President
Australian Taxi Drivers Association
Sunday, August 23, 2009

A Taxi Industry Revolution of the Millenia.

A small group of Taxi Drivers in Victoria, a group that has not been heard from for many years and almost totally forgotten have fired a shot that may be heard accross the world.



They have started an action before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in conjunction with the Deputy Prime Minister’s attempts in her portfolio as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for Awards Modernisation.

The release about this matter came to our attention after the time for submissions to A.I.R.C. on this issue had closed and the matter is due to be heard in Sydney by the full bench of the A.I.R.C. on Thursday July 2nd.

A industrial reform advocate a Mr. John Ryan is appearing for the Taxi Drivers Association of Victoria.



If you are interested in attending or writing to him about your views on the matter a full report is found on our website, front page including submissions from interested parties and a transcript of the original proceeding when the matter was originally commenced.


Contact: John Ryan, LLB, LLM

Ph: (03) 8611 7000Fax: (03) 8611 7099 Email: johnryan@sda.org.au


The full story is far too lengthy to be posted on this blog site and serious consideration should be given to what is about to happen as this could well impact on the present bailee / bailor conditions that bailee drivers work under.

What is proposed by Mr. Ryan can be surmised as a ‘Trojan Horse’ in so far as what looks to be fantastic on the outside contains deep and dangerous repercussions for all bailee drivers in the 'Trojan Horses Belly' where the Contract Determination under which some of you work under may well become nul and void as of the 31st of December 2009.

For others that have had no such Contract Determination what the new award proposes if passed by A.I.R.C. is that you all are to become employees, be paid a set wage, work a 38 hour week, be paid penalty rates for week ends and public holiday driving as well as receive holiday pay, sick pay and superannuation. Hooray you say...do not be so quick to cheer.

The danger being that the owner operators and the lessee operators could ill afford to pay such an award based on the incomes that cabs generate in certain areas of Australia and would be forced to only drive the cabs themselves and sack you the bailee driver.

The interesting scenario is what would happen to plate only investors that give their plates to various cab bases to manage for them. These Pitt Street Farmers as we call them in N.S.W.

Who is going to drive their cabs for them if all the bailee drivers are disposed of and they fail to comply with the new award if passed and comes into effect as of 1 January 2010.

What numerous people seem to see happening is that back in the days of the Keating Government, a vague piece of legislation was passed demanding that the States buy back every single taxi plate issued and then run the taxi service how so ever each State chooses.

No state could afford this law and it was constantly put on hold through various people lobbying Canberra.

With the Gillard reforms that are proposed it seems to be an attempt to grossly reduce the over inflated value of Taxi Plates or in some cases force the operators of the same to just hand them in and walk away from the industry.

This, to the genuine professional driver operator is a great injustice for all the blood, sweat and tears they may have put into the industry over the span of their careers.

The only good thing that this Award if passed will do is to rid this industry of the Pitt Street farmers afore mentioned and only people with a real desire to work in the industry will be allowed to do so.

The only way that this can happen is that the Federal Government take over the entire taxi industry across Australia and we all become employees of the Commonwealth of Australia. As one understands it this has been done in the Northern Teritory and it seems to work. Was the N.T. the guine pig and now Canberra has greater ambitions?

One has to smile, an enourmous entity like Mac.Bank could not make a go of it, I wonder how Kev will go. A taxi service funded by Tax payers oh well about time too. It will also cut out all the tax cheats, and the Illeagal imports into our industry as only those with ligitimate work visas or residency status will be able to work in the industry. That in itself is a good thought.

Personally the author of this article does not have a problem with this idea however, not being an owner driver, lessee operator or a plate owning investor have nothing to loose but plenty to gain if ending up working for the Feds.

What about the rest of the stake holders in the industry?



Indeed this will be a Battle Royal!!! a revolutionary attempt like no other anywhere, and if successfull will upset the apple cart of many.

Hey Sarah, Sarah, whatever will be will be!

Cab Drivers Association of Queensland Website

Congratulations to the Cabdrivers Association of Queensland in the creation of an excellent website. Well done people.

Demerit Points Reply from the RTA to A Ministerial Submission

Some time ago we posted an issue on Demerit Points and made representations to the Minister for Roads the minister responsible for the Road and Traffic Authority that administers the national agreement for the allocation of demerit points against motorists.

We have finally received a reply which came from Michael Bushby, Acting Chief Executive.

The reply reads and we quote:

Thank you for your email to the Minister for Roads about an offence where the Court did not record a conviction under a section 10 dismissal. The Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf. I apologise for the delay.

When hearing a matter, a Court determines whether a person is guilty or not guilty of an offence. Where a person is found not guilty, no court penalty or demerit points are applied and it is the end of the matter.

Where a court finds a person guilty of an offence, it may determine the level of penalty that is to apply. However, the Court has no jurisdiction to vary or direct that no demerit points apply.

This is because the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 provides that the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) must allocate the prescribed number of demerit points to the relevant offence if a court finds a person guilty. This is based on agreed national driver licensing policy that the application of demerit points is an administrative system that is separate from a Court process.

Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provides the Court with an alternative option in sentencing following a determination of guilt. Under the section, the Court can decline to convict a person and, therefore, not apply the penalties that are available to it under the law such as a fine or a period of licence disqualification.

Since the application of Section 10 relies on a finding of guilt, the provisions of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998 prevails and demerit points must be applied. It is important to note that the allocation of demerit points is not a decision of the RTA. The RTA has no discretionary power available to it under the law to vary, or not to apply, the allocated number of demerit points for an offence..

For more information, please contact the RTA’s Manager, Driver Sanctions Mr. Ed Ramsay on (02) 8588 4352


Comment on the Reply:- The Law of the Land for whatever offence and the application of penalties or sanctions of the same has always been the jurisdiction of the Courts of the land be they State Laws or Federal or Commonwealth Laws.

If what Mr. Bushby says is correct the judicial power of the Court has been eroded not by any piece of legislation passed by the lawmakers of Australia, i.e., Parliament. This has been done by an “agreed national driver licensing policy”.
Since when an agreed to “national driver licensing policy”is a law. Our argument in this matter is if this policy was indeed “law” then the Court would have the jurisdiction to interpret the same and apply the provision of Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in the dismissal of all penalties including the penalisation of the offender by way of demerit points.

Somewhere in the Parliamentary decision making process in regards to the laws of the land a loophole was created whereby a policy became a penalty, which the Court has no power over in the determination or application of all or no penalties.

Our respectful submission is that the Court should be the only judicial body in Australia, be it a State or Federal Court that is the sole administrator of punitive actions against any offence.

We humbly submit that a demerit point application is a punitive action and although a magistrate decides penalize the offender under the provision of Section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; the offender still suffers a penalty by way of the demerit point application. This in itself is a punitive action that still is incurred by the offender if the offender chooses to save the Court time in pleading guilty with an explanation.

The alternative is that the offender when charged with a traffic offence refuses to plead guilty with an explanation and tie up the Court’s time and that of the police prosecutor with a hearing that can be extended over quite a period of time depending on the Court lists and the availability of the magistrate to hear the matter in drawn out detail.

Our humble reccomendation would be to restore the judiciary power of the Court to the full application of all penalties including the allocation or dismissal of the demerit point penalty that way the matter can be heard in a quick and expedient matter both to the Court and the defendant appearing before the same.

ATDA now has a permanent home

As of the 29th April 2009 the Australian Taxi Drivers Association has relocated to a modern and permanent location at 11B Lachlan Street Waterloo. The taxi industry "mafia" has hounded us for the last few months as it seems that we are truly starting to annoy them with our struggle for the rights and conditions for taxi drivers. Friends they stooped to their usual tactics of indimidation. Now they cannot do a thing about coercing the landlords of our new premisis to evict us. We are here to stay and continue our fight on your behalf for a Fair Share of a Fair Fare. Unlike the would be if they could be secret society of the NSWTDA who hide their location out of fear, we make our presence and location public and welcome all taxi drivers to come in and discuss their problems. Our office hours are advertised to the left of this post.

Poor Service in Queensland

I have been driving taxis for four years.

I am a female in my fifties who finds it difficult to get any other type of work, however, I am now proud to be a taxi driver and interested in the issues involved.

Since my last office job over Christmas 2008, I returned to driving to find it difficult to hire a taxi on a daily basis because of the number or foreign drivers taking cabs.

My office job was at Centrelink Call Centre where I took applications for unemployment benefits.

As a driver with four years taxi driving experience, I was aware that the number of drivers had increased enormously after the Christmas period.

Most of these drivers were from overseas. I am not sure if they are permanent residents or here on student visas.

When we are undergoing a recession it is disgraceful if people here on student visas take jobs from Australians, mature age or made redundant.

I am aware that a huge number of drivers are not even capable drivers. Passengers have told me they have asked to get out of cabs where they felt their lives were endangered and the driver obviously had no actual driver's license.

I have also been approached by numerous foreign 'drivers' asking me where a particular address is and who display absolutely no knowledge of any streets.

Customers have complained that some foreign drivers a) Do not speak English and b) haven't a clue where they are going and c) have no driving skills.

It is a matter of pride for me that I do my job well. I am also finding that the newcomers do not obey the basic rules of driving such as: not logging onto a rank until they are in it; overcharging customers; not taking jobs they do not think pay enough.

It is hard enough to find work in my country as a mature age woman even though I am qualified as a Personal Assitant and have a degree.

I am only able to hire a cab on a daily basis on a Monday and Friday due to the large number of 'drivers' now requiring cabs. I could tolerate this happily if they were Australian Permanent Residents who are legal cab drivers; they are not.

It is high time that drivers had to display their license on the dashboard of their cab. Why Queensland cab drivers have not been required to do this, and why this is so loosely policed is amazing.

The public deserves more from a transport association than this. You are an Association with members and a mission. Why then has this policy not been instigated?

People here on student visas should be able to support themselves without taking jobs from Australians.

I take great pride now in the service I provide. I want the cab drivers of Brisbane to stand out as an example of professionalism. Our tourist industry is paramount to Queensland. Taxi Drivers should be an essential part of that service.

Raise the standard and don't let non-English speaking, unlicensed drivers use the industry as a way to make extra money at the expense of Australians.

Bring in the law that licenses must be displayed.