Page 1043 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Part of the problem with bookings is that many WAT drivers do not necessarily want to do WAT work, or they pick an able-bodied client over a WAT client. There are dedicated WAT drivers who are a WAT driver because of the service they provide to people with a disability, and customers report that there are very good drivers. Yesterday I received a glowing report from a woman who noted there were key drivers who knew how to make the system work for her.
A successful WAT service is very much about the dedication of the drivers. Perhaps the answer lies more in employing drivers that want to provide this essential service, who pride themselves on providing this service and who can earn a living through this work. Having spoken with the Geelong taxi service, it was quite clear over the phone just how dedicated the operators were to people with disabilities. Geelong is cited as having one of the better WAT services in Australia.
The most recent ACT taxi industry review report, while it recommended against completely adopting the suggestions of the WAT Consortium or the CTIA, has some very instructive information when you consider the viability of operating a WAT. It notes that the total estimated operating costs by PricewaterhouseCoopers amount to around $101,000 per annum and that a typical WAT gross fare earnings of $127,000 per annum, excluding lift fees, is shared with the operator. The estimated net income of a single median WAT is $24,000 per annum, which is shared between the operator and the drivers.
This shows how difficult it is for a driver to earn a living. Over the years various incentives and lift fees have been introduced and there are discussions in the review, once again, about needing to look at other incentives to make WATs work. This raises the questions—are we going to need to increase and introduce more incentives, and will this actually make a difference, when it has not in the past, or should we move to another system which may cost more but will provide certainty of service and also allow drivers to maintain a living and stay working as a WAT driver? Driver retention is another key issue.
The taxi review notes that it believed it would be costly for government for ACTION to take on the responsibility for delivering a WAT service, which was the favoured recommendation by the WAT Consortium, and that it would be unlikely to be a cost-effective way of achieving WAT service improvements. It is also important to note with regard to this point that the taxi review did not undertake a detailed financial assessment of this model.
A compromise was for a centrally managed WAT fleet outside the existing taxi network, using dedicated WAT drivers. The government’s discussion paper from April 2010 also notes that, of the operating 25 WATs, only eight had carried out WAT work in excess of 20 per cent of their total jobs and 10 WATs recorded WAT work at less than five per cent. The remaining WATs tended to have about six per cent of their total jobs as this work.
The paper said that WAT drivers did limited WAT work because, despite the subsidies, WAT jobs are not as financially rewarding as non-WAT jobs, there are long
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video