Wednesday, 6 April 2022

Economy and Infrastructure Committee

Inquiry into the Multi Purpose Taxi Program

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (17:15): I am pleased to speak to this report, and I thank Mr Barton for not only instigating this inquiry but his unwavering tenacity on behalf of all those that are still battling to eke out a living in this industry. I had particular interest in this inquiry as my mother- and father-in-law were both wheelchair-accessible vehicle (WAV) drivers in Geelong. I watched and admired the special relationships they had with their clients—relationships based on mutual trust and respect, something that could only be built over time and with continually having that person to safely take you from one place to another and back again over years.

The rideshare industry has no regard for that relationship. Their only concern is the quickest way to make the quickest buck out of some of our most vulnerable citizens. That is not my assumption; that is their own admission. They want to cherrypick the client base and take only the fares that WAVs rely on between the wheelchair fares to make their service viable. They want to keep training in house only. They do not want cameras in their cars. They want to apply surge pricing to handicapped clients on fixed incomes, people on disability support pensions and the like. Their behaviour is akin to Ebenezer Scrooge evicting the orphans from the orphanage to stand in the snow in below-freezing temperatures.

This inquiry exposed the rideshare industry for what it is and also laid bare the mind-boggling inadequacies of Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria. There is no clearer example of this than the sham of a trial on not just the suitability of Uber’s technology for the scheme but also participant experience. One might expect that such a trial, particularly with participants, would be extensive, would be broad in its trial group, taking into study all types of users. But no, it was a trial of only six users conducted in Geelong that also only took place over 11 days—absolutely appalling.

Thankfully recommendation 3 insists upon a true and comprehensive survey. Recommendation 11 insists that all participating vehicles must have security cameras installed. Recommendation 12 is that minimum safety and accessibility requirements for vehicles be implemented. Recommendation 14 deals specifically with preventing Uber from ripping off vulnerable people by introducing a maximum fare no greater than that set by the Essential Services Commission.

I know that many in the community have been concerned about personal safety; driver identification and authenticity; and assaults, including sexual assaults, committed by rideshare drivers. This was highlighted in New South Wales, where there were around 500 offences committed in a short period. So it is pleasing to see that recommendation 20 states that the government will require all Uber drivers participating in the scheme to undergo an NDIS worker screening check in line with other industries, under the Victorian Safety Screening Policy.

This is a damning report exposing a number of failings, but the recommendations allow for significant improvement, and I have touched on just a few. I want to thank the secretariat for their hard work and diligence, and I thank the chair, Mr Erdogan, for his patience. Mr Barton and I were adamant, we were forceful and we were sometimes downright belligerent on many sections of this inquiry. But I make no apology for that. As I said, these vulnerable Victorians deserve far better than what was going to be served up to them.

This report actually only scratches the surface. There is far more to be done, as I am sure Mr Barton will agree and will continue to push for. I was pleased to participate to fight for those that need it, and I sincerely hope the government implements the recommendations in full, commits to a far deeper dive into this matter and delivers a fairer, safer service for all.