Personalised Transport Ombudsman Bill 2019
Plain English Summary
Overview
This bill creates a Personalised Transport Ombudsman to independently handle complaints about taxis, rideshare, and booked hire services in Queensland. It also updates transport laws to support new contactless ticketing technology for public transport and makes several improvements to operator and driver licensing requirements.
Who it affects
Passengers who use rideshare, taxi, or booked hire services gain a new avenue to resolve complaints. Public transport users will benefit from new contactless payment options. Transport operators and drivers face updated accreditation and authorisation requirements.
Personalised Transport Ombudsman
Establishes an independent ombudsman to investigate complaints about rideshare, taxi, and booked hire services. The ombudsman operates independently, can compel information and attendance, and reports systemic issues to the Minister. Complainants are protected from reprisal.
- New independent Personalised Transport Ombudsman appointed by the Governor in Council for up to 3-year terms (maximum 10 years total)
- Anyone can complain about a personalised transport service, including about vehicle conditions, driver behaviour, or business practices
- The ombudsman can require parties to provide information or attend meetings, with penalties of up to 100 penalty units for corporations that refuse
- Reprisal against someone for making a complaint is an offence carrying up to 75 penalty units, and victims can also sue for damages
Contactless ticketing for public transport
Supports the rollout of a new ticketing solution allowing passengers to use contactless debit and credit cards, smartphones, and wearable devices on public transport. Moves fare evasion offences from the Act to regulation for flexibility as technology evolves.
- Fare evasion offences move from the Act to regulation to keep pace with changing ticketing technology
- Government can share information with educational institutions and other entities to verify concession fare entitlements
- Unclaimed credit on dormant passenger accounts (inactive for 5 years) can be used to improve public transport, but refund rights are preserved
Operator and driver licensing changes
Clarifies operator accreditation and driver authorisation requirements, reduces penalties for holding the wrong category, and makes changes to taxi licence transfers and the taxi security levy.
- Penalties reduced for holding the wrong category of operator accreditation or driver authorisation (from higher penalties to 20 penalty units)
- Taxi licence holders can no longer request transfers between service areas — transfers require a formal departmental review
- New offence for transport operators who use drivers without proper authorisation (up to 160 penalty units)
- CPI calculation for the taxi industry security levy realigned to match the department's annual fees and charges timing
Bill Story
The journey of this bill through Parliament, including debate and recorded votes.
▸Committee13 Feb 2019View Hansard
Referred to Transport and Public Works Committee
The Transport and Public Works Committee examined the Personalised Transport Ombudsman Bill 2019, receiving nine submissions and holding public hearings with industry stakeholders including taxi operators, ride-share drivers, unions, and limousine operators. The committee recommended the bill be passed, while making seven additional recommendations addressing concerns about the ombudsman's independence, powers, funding, and transparency. The government supported or supported in principle six of the seven additional recommendations, but did not support granting the ombudsman the power to make binding decisions.
Key findings (5)
- Stakeholders broadly supported establishing a Personalised Transport Ombudsman but raised concerns about the office's limited powers to make binding decisions
- Industry groups including the Ride Share Drivers' Association and Queensland Taxi License Owner's Association argued the ombudsman would have no real power to compel parties to comply with outcomes
- The committee found the bill lacked sufficient transparency requirements and recommended the ombudsman be required to publicly report on systemic issues and complaint statistics
- Concerns were raised about the adequacy of proposed funding, with the government allocating approximately $5 million over three years and committing to a statutory review within that period
- The committee questioned whether the five-year industry exclusion period for ombudsman candidates was excessive, leading to a government amendment reducing it to three years
Recommendations (8)
- The committee recommends the Personalised Transport Ombudsman Bill 2019 be passed.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads consider amending the Bill to remove the time period a potential candidate has been absent from the industry and only exclude current industry participants.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads reconsider the Personalised Transport Ombudsman's ability to make binding decisions.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads clarifies in the second reading of the Bill whether representative bodies will be able to access the services of the Personalised Transport Ombudsman on behalf of their members.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads amend the Bill to include a requirement that the Personalised Transport Ombudsman publicly report on systemic issues and complaints statistics.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads reconsider the proposed funding arrangements to ensure that sufficient resources are made available for the Personalised Transport Ombudsman to undertake all aspects of the role efficiently and effectively.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads ensure that the Personalised Transport Ombudsman reports directly to the Minister.
- The committee recommends the Minister for Transport and Main Roads clarifies in the second reading of the Bill how allowing a regulation to prescribe matters that a court must take into account in considering a claim has sufficient regard not only to the institution of Parliament but also to the institution of the courts.
Committee report tabled
▸Second Reading22 Aug 2019View Hansard
That the bill be now read a second time
Vote on whether to advance the Personalised Transport Ombudsman Bill to the next stage, supported by ALP and Greens (48-42) against LNP, KAP, PHON and independents who argued the ombudsman lacked real enforcement powers.
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (48)
Noes (42)
▸21 members spoke7 support14 oppose
As Minister for Transport, introduced and defended the bill establishing an independent ombudsman for the personalised transport industry, proposing amendments to reduce the industry exclusion period from five to three years and require annual public reporting.
“The Personalised Transport Ombudsman is founded on principles of independence, impartiality, integrity and the public interest, and no reading of the bill could come to any other conclusion.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
As shadow transport minister, opposed the bill arguing the ombudsman would be a toothless tiger with limited powers, and that the LNP's proposed statutory personalised transport commissioner would be more effective.
“Given the many concerns that we have with the proposed bill, the LNP's position will be to oppose it. When it comes to formulating legislation there is a golden rule, which is around the fact that you do not legislate what you are not prepared to enforce.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
As committee chair, supported the bill, noting it would be reviewed within three years and welcoming the minister's acceptance of committee recommendations on transparency and reporting.
“This model of PTO is not exactly what was recommended for the industry by the former public works and utilities committee that I chaired last parliament, but I hope the solution does work well.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a toothless tiger that cannot address the fundamental problems caused by rideshare disruption of the taxi industry.
“This bill is a waste of time. Based on feedback to the transport committee—it is a toothless tiger—it really does not do anything.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Supported the bill, welcoming the smart ticketing provisions, the ombudsman's role in addressing working conditions in the gig economy, and the minister's acceptance of committee recommendations.
“Any moves by the government to address concerns and to look after the working conditions of emerging industries are very important.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
As a committee member, opposed the bill as a farce not supported by any submissions, citing criticism from the Taxi Council, Ride Share Drivers' Association and Transport Workers' Union.
“This bill is a farce and was not supported by any submissions made to the committee.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Supported the bill, highlighting the smart ticketing provisions and the positive impact of TransLink's introduction to Townsville public transport.
“People will be able to use mobile phones and smart watches to travel on those buses.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as the result of Labor's failure to properly regulate the personalised transport industry, citing the Taxi Council's criticism of the ombudsman as a toothless tiger.
“In reality, the legislation before this House is the very essence of what I described earlier—that is, it is the result of a Labor government that has failed demonstrably to grasp the emergence of new technologies and new business models.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Supported the bill, particularly the smart ticketing provisions that will enable contactless payments and extend the same ticketing system to regional Queensland.
“The Palaszczuk government has invested $371 million to deliver the new smart ticketing solution.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Expressed extreme cynicism about the ombudsman's effectiveness based on the experience with rideshare companies breaking laws with impunity, seeing it as another costly layer of bureaucracy.
“I am very sceptical about where it will count in relation to the substantial issues that we are trying to address.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Supported the bill, particularly welcoming the smart ticketing solution for regional Queenslanders and the establishment of an independent ombudsman.
“Being able to use your debit or credit card will make travel so much easier.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as window-dressing, noting that both the Taxi Council and Ride Share Drivers' Association agreed the ombudsman would lack real power to resolve complaints.
“If this ombudsman does not have any powers to solve anything, we have to ask ourselves why the government would spend money and spend this parliament's time debating a bill that has this outcome.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
As a former transport minister, supported the bill as a logical next step in the regulatory framework, contrasting the government's proactive approach with the Newman government's inaction on rideshare.
“It is Queensland Labor that brought ride-booking services out of the shadows.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a token attempt with controlled scope and limitations, criticising the government's woeful record on fare evasion and the ombudsman's inability to investigate government policy.
“If this position is supposedly independent, why can it not investigate government policy? If it is bad policy and it affects taxpayers, why should it not be investigated?”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as creating a toothless tiger opposed by all major stakeholders, while acknowledging the smart ticketing provisions would benefit regional Queenslanders.
“Why are we proceeding with this bill when we have stakeholders, the industry itself, saying that this position will be a toothless tiger?”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
As former shadow transport minister, opposed the bill citing the LNP's preferred policy of a personalised transport commissioner as supported by the Taxi Council and other stakeholders.
“This bill sets up a toothless tiger that not one single stakeholder supports. It is very rare, but even the unions are opposing what is being proposed in this bill.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Raised concerns about the cost to regional Queensland taxpayers of funding an ombudsman for an industry dominated by companies that will not fund their own regulatory compliance.
“Is it fair that the people in regional and remote Queensland should be committing their hard-earned tax dollars when the likes of Uber and Lyft cannot be bothered to fund their own human resources and workplace health and safety functions?”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as a waste of money to establish a weak position, arguing the ombudsman would become a scapegoat for the government to shift blame to.
“It is clear from key stakeholders, and even from the committee report, that this bill has major flaws. It will end up being a waste of money to establish such a weak position as the Personalised Transport Ombudsman.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill, noting the extraordinary number of committee recommendations for such a simple bill and the catalogue of adverse stakeholder comments.
“The only outcome that this is likely to produce is more bureaucracy and higher costs for little if any gain.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill as falling short of the LNP's proposed personalised transport commissioner, noting that no stakeholder group supported the bill.
“This is clearly an embarrassing outcome for the Labor government. After nearly five years, it clearly still does not have a clue about the industry and the challenges it is facing.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
Opposed the bill for creating an ombudsman in name only with no specified qualifications, limited scope, and no power to deliver solutions to systemic complaints.
“Basically, this legislation sets up an ombudsman that is really in name only. As we have heard earlier, it will be a 'toothless tiger'.”— 2019-09-03View Hansard
▸In Detail3 Sept 2019View Hansard
Amendment to clause 2 changing commencement provisions so the Personalised Transport Ombudsman provisions commence by proclamation rather than on assent, allowing time for recruitment of the ombudsman after the bill passes.
That the amendment be agreed to
Vote on Minister Bailey's amendment to clause 2 changing the commencement provisions so the Personalised Transport Ombudsman provisions commence by proclamation rather than on assent, allowing time for the ombudsman to be recruited.
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (41)
Amendments Nos 2 to 4: reducing the industry exclusion period for ombudsman candidates from five years to three years (clause 12), preventing the minister from re-referring matters already dealt with by the ombudsman (clause 21), and requiring annual public reporting on complaint numbers, investigation outcomes and systemic issues (new clause 95A).
That the minister’s amendments Nos 2 to 4, as circulated, be agreed to
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (41)
▸1 clause vote (all passed)
Vote on clause 1
Procedural vote on the first clause during Consideration in Detail, reflecting the same party-line split as the second reading vote (49-41).
The clause was kept in the bill.
A vote on whether a specific clause should remain in the bill as written.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (41)
▸1 procedural vote
Vote to grant leave
Mr Bleijie (LNP) sought leave to move a motion without notice after the bill passed. Labor used their numbers to deny leave (44-47).
Permission was refused.
A vote on whether to grant permission — for example, to introduce an amendment or vary normal procedure.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (44)
Noes (47)
▸Third Reading3 Sept 2019View Hansard
That the long title of the bill be agreed to
Procedural vote to formally adopt the bill's long title following third reading, passed with government support (49-41).
The motion passed.
▸Show individual votesHide individual votes
Ayes (49)
Noes (41)
Referenced Entities
Legislation
Organisations
Programs & Schemes
Roles & Offices
Sectors Affected
Classified using AGIFT/ANZSIC Australian government standards