Submission Re: Matter No - 3 of 2005 Australian Competition Tribunal
I have made the submission below earlier and recognised by his honour. I would like to make a few more points due to some structural and circumstantial changes in the taxi industry. For the sake of accountability and transparency, I also would like to declare that Iam an elected member of the NSW Taxi Drivers Association's executive committee.
Taxi co-operatives (not taxi companies or networks) obtained "the authorisation in contention" by not telling the truth, twisting the truth and using racism as well as some other false claims they made to misguide the then Trade Practices Commission. Ultimately, the original applicants, specifically the Red and Yellow Deluxe have used many false claims "for their own narrow benefit" and got away with them. Fortunately most of their typical false claims and lies were detected and eventually correctly rejected by the TPC in matterA30152.
The Australian Competition Commission should have continued their stand and withdraw the authorisation! Yet, reason not known to us; they have not done so. As a result we are in front of this Tribunal right now.
Some privately owned entities of the taxi industry argued, "taxi drivers' do not have any right to represent themselves in this tribunal or any where else". A claim of such a nature ought to be surprising, harsh and unjust as some "mysterious identities" can't and must not be representing taxi drivers! To his wisdom, Justice Goldberg accepted Mr. Michael Jools, President of the NSW Taxi Drivers Association as a party and asked me to contribute in the matter. After a long and costly journey, the private entities of taxi industry have decided not to contest us in this matter.
I thought this is a signal of accepting the defeat because they do not have any valid response to our long and valued submissions.
However, The Australian Competition Commission has now decided to spend tax-payers' fund to defend the indefensible, e.g. defending the privately owned Cabcharge Limited's interest in this tribunal is beyond my comprehension.
Part of my earlier submission:
I the undersigned, Faruque Ahmed, have been advocating bailee taxi drivers' rights and interests in the state and federal instrumentalities, Parliaments, media, before the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and formerly the Trade Practices Commission as:
1. Secretary/Treasurer and President of Taxi Drivers' Section of the NSW Transport Workers Union, respectively,
2. Vice-President and President of Taxi Industry Services Association, respectively and
3. President, NSW Cabbie Welfare Association.I am also a working bailee taxi driver.
Any decision made by the ACCC and this Court regarding the Cabcharge Taxi Authorisation directly affects me as:
1. I am currently compelled to work for Cabcharge Limited for 30 minutes per shift free of charge,
2. I am compelled to bear the burden of any dockets voided by Cabcharge for reasons beyond my control or ability, thus eroding my industrial rights,
3. I am compelled to bear the burden of traffic fines that incurred whilst processing Cabcharge dockets and credit cards,
4. I am compelled to provide my private details to a company withwhom I have no contractual relations, and
5. Because of my free labour and miseries mentioned in "1" to "4" above the Cabcharge is making huge amount of money and buying upvarious taxi industry instrumentalities and thereby reducing and eventually destroying competition in the taxi industry,
6. The State and Federal Government provided unfair advantage to Cabcharge are effectively restricting any new comers to open up any new ventures in the taxi industry,
7. I have made Submissions on this particular matter to the ACCC.
8. I have had several conferences with officers of the ACCC, at their request, on this particular matter.
Mobile: 041 091 4118