Notwithstanding the current chaotic under regulated Western Australian transit market place, has been the recent decision by the beleaguered transport minister to openly declare the government’s intention to legalise uber. On the 18th of this month Minister Nalder officially announced that uber would legally be incorporated into the transit sector, albeit that its participation would have to meet a number of government compliance directives. The inevitability of legalising uber had intensified throughout 2015, both as a result of the confused narrative emanating from the regulator and the blatant unconscionable support of it by some high ranking members of the government and prominent community leaders. But ultimately it was the timing of Nalder’s announcement that caused the greatest consternation amongst the patient stakeholders, owners and drivers of the taxi industry.

By David Sangiorgio

Suddenly and without warning, notions of deregulation unexpectedly were being confirmed by a minister many felt had not fully adhered to the script. Astoundingly, Nalder’s ad hoc decision of supposed transparent media disclosure, controverted both the pending Supreme Court decision on uber’s legitimacy and the ongoing necessary discussion processes of the government induced Green Paper. The entire consultative process, previously initiated by the Nalder camp to appease and incorporate the valuable viewpoints of taxi industry stakeholders, owners and drivers, instantaneously become a quasi-irrelevant exercise. How could the government on the one hand suggest reformation of the taxi industry and on the other confirm its decimation. For many, uber’s authorised sanctioning virtually sealed the taxi industries fate. Nalder’s reassuring uber media display, outwardly revealed the growing malaise that had fermented throughout the governments rank and file support for uber, from the frustrating influences of the juvenile arm of the Young Liberal Party through to the premier. But was this premature public declaration in support of uber a strategically sound policy manoeuvre or just a politically motivated one?

Nalder had been known (during private conversations with specific stakeholders) to proclaim his dislike for uber, suggesting that the only reason why their entry into the marketplace was being considered was the impressive technology it offered. However, in light of advances in competitive “apps” innovation the technology argument could no longer now be applied. Further procrastination would thus force uber lackeys and political decision makers to have to devise other rigorous sounding arguments to try to legitimise uber’s current untenable position and future pointless transit inclusion. Perhaps it was for this reason that Nalder realised the timing factor had become a key element in helping to sustain the uber legitimacy and future policy changes. Besides, the result of uber’s continuing escalating popularity in the community would have been causing a number of electoral headaches for some of the more astute political intermediaries whose masters were sitting in marginally threatened seats. Apparently, in politics timing is everything, but so is the ability to make the absurd sound rational. The incoherent declarations of the minister explaining the need to expeditiously legalise an illegality, bordered on the unsalvageable. Moreover, it brought into sharp focus that perhaps something more sinister may have actually influenced Nalder’s less than impressive decision making display. The timing may have been precise but the flimsy argument was not.

Two days before (16/12/15) Nalder’s musings on sanctioning uber, the New South Wales Government legalised uber, following similar changes in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (30/10/15). The view was that by legalising uber in some form, the regulator would be able to control certain aspects of its hastily remodelled framework (including customer safety concerns, comprehensive insurance requirements and intensive driver vetting). In other words, the clear picture was that the NSW and ACT governments were prepared to compromise and readjust their legislative roles as transit regulators by sanctioning the uber interloper. Hence, with one stroke both governments were able to placate swelling public support for the unregulated uber while maintaining some control over the entire transit sphere. Obviously, the attractive strategy gave the meandering dawdling Western Australian government the smoke screen opportunity to replicate similar transit sector modifications and participate in the “uberesque snowball effect”.

Equally interesting was Wednesday’s (16/12/15) Supreme Court ruling against the Western Australian governments Roe 8 wetlands extension strategy. Subsequently, Premier Barnett responded that the court defeat was based on a minor technicality and directed that his government would seek to pursue another costly approvals process with ensuing success. The Premiers arrogance in the face of the adverse court decision may have invoked his transport minister to take advantage of the government’s exceptional belligerence, in light of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision over the government’s inaction to protect the taxi industry. Nalder’s timing in declaring uber’s ratification, just weeks prior to the imminent “writ of Mandamus” Supreme Court decision, undermined the significance of the court’s judgement regardless of its ruling. Moreover, Nalder’s premature pronouncements that the law would be altered in due course to permit uber’s inclusion ran the risk of seeming to want to influence the final decision of the court. Either way, the government firmly established its position and designated direction regardless of any probable hostile court verdict.

Further to short changing the taxi industry, Nalder also made it clear that legislative changes would expeditiously be completed by July 2016 to primarily accommodate uber. But the self-assured sounding proclamation belied the confidence of the minister’s own tenuous electoral/cabinet position and clearly signposted policy on the run. Furthermore, proposed yet still to be finalised rules on uber indicated the ministers confusion at attempting to equitably level the transit playing field. The confused narrative was that uber would remain unlawful until the policy changes were ratified. Until then, uber drivers contravening current law would be conveniently circumvented due to the government’s lack of resources and funding. One rule for the compliant taxi industry and another for the new uber hacks. Nevertheless, would the interloper abide by the proposed changes and would the regulator be able to adequately administrate the new playing field? Past performances from both parties signify that such trepidations would not be met and that the expendable taxi industry would be the only casualty.

Nalder’s actions reek of being opportunistically timed and politically motivated. But recklessly altering policy to suit the illegal activities of belligerent market entrants are fraught with dangerous legal precedence practices. More often than not, the poor decisions of electoral conscious politicians are only realised well after they have been removed from parliament. Hopefully on this occasion the dire consequences of legally permitting the uber interloper into the transit marketplace will be exposed sooner rather than later, making sure Nalder and his supporters are brought to account.