Entrenched monopolies usually collapse like pricked balloons when a new techniques or technologies break up the barriers that protect the monopoly.

This has certainly been the case with the taxi industry and Uber. The background criminal and safety checks by Uber combined with electronic trail make offensive or dangerous behaviour easily traceable with rapid consequences, and provide incentives to drivers during peak or difficult periods.

The government has tried to protect its monopoly, but has failed due to the legal protection of the drivers by Uber. While I feel sorry for the drivers and taxi owners, I feel the government should act to smooth the transition rather than try to fight a doomed rearguard action.

Which government? The laws on this are different in every state!

I'm sorry, but allowing ubar to operate, while insisting the taxi industry be licensed and jump through hoops is little short of criminal.

If I were the owner of a taxi right now I'd be spitting chips.

Dear SM,

The Green Paper is yet to go to Cabinet for approval.
However after reading the explanations given in the
following website I must admit that I find that
getting rid of common problems like - taxi drivers
overcharging, fights between drivers and passengers
over fares, patron uncertainty about costs, and fare runners,
appeals to me.

We'll see if the Cabinet agrees.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/sweeping-changes-to-the-taxi-system-in-wa-proposed-in-green-pap/6628880

The wrong question is being asked:

It's not about "allowing uber to operate", it's about the freedom of individuals to provide car-rides to each other for a pay.

While this freedom should not be denied, it is still possible (if so desired) to prosecute uber while not interfering with individual drivers and passengers: that is because uber is a company rather than an individual and as companies are artificial constructs, they do not have any sacred or natural freedoms.

My personal interest is to keep the taxis going, so I might privately suffer from the operation of uber (to which I have no access) as I might find it more difficult, if not impossible, to find emergency transportation when I really need it or to get anywhere when I'm too old to drive, but as much as I dislike it, that does not give me (or anyone else, including the government) any right to harass drivers and passengers who use their service.

Meanwhile at least, taxis have the privilege of using express public-transport lanes and dedicated parking spaces: they paid for this privilege and they should continue to enjoy it exclusively. Additional privileges should also be considered, such as allowing taxis to drive faster or increasing the number of demerit-points that take a taxi-driver off the road.

Yu, it's not about fairness, it's about the law and more importantly, insurance laws.

You see with the majority of passenger owned cars being privately registered, it's against the law to charge for a ride, even to carry a parcel for a charge. This is why commercial rego is available, but it comes at a cost. Ones insurance is also higher fir com rego.

But, like most things it often comes unstuck when something goes wrong.

Take Queenslands new approach of no longer having a rego label on your car. What happens if you accept a ride from someone Uber or other, have an accident and the driver forgot to pay their rego.

Third party is not obliged to pay up, nor is the insurer of the vehicle involved, or any other
for that matter. This list goes on.

Personally, from a registered business mans point of view, I'm against the likes of Uber as they don't have the compliance costs associated with the taxi industry.

I must confes I know nothing about Uber but what i do know is that pretty much every other form of deregulation has ended in tears.