Notifying the Revocation of Authorisation

Faruque Ahmed
P O Box – 349, Alexandria – 2015
Mobile: 041 091 4118
Email: union_faruque@yahoo.com.au
Blog: Member of Parliament and Media Outlets

Ms Isabelle Arnaud
Director, Adjudication Branch
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
23 Marcus Clarke Street
Canberra ACT 2601
Tel: (02) 6243 1111 Fax: (02) 6243 1199


Subject : Notifying the Revocation of Authorisation



Dear Ms. Arnaud

According to your letter of 18 April 2008 "The Tribunal decided on 27 June 2006 to revoke the authorisations on the basis that the benefit of certainty of acceptance of non-cash payments was not sufficient to sustain the authorizations". We have been asking your department to do the same for along time. Because we knew that the then Trade Practices Commission was misled and the "Authorisation" was granted incorrectly.

We also knew that a similar request to grant almost an identical "Authorisation" was rejected for good reason. You should also know that the Cabcharge was defending the indefensible and they failed to counter our challenges in the court of law earlier.

Your letter advised that:
" Eflect of the Tribunal decision
The revocation by the Tribunal of the twelve authorisations means that the networks which previously had authorisation can no longer engage in the conduct without being at risk of action under the Trade Practices Act. Whether or not specific requirements would raise concerns under the competition provisions of the Act would depend on the specific nature of the requirements imposed.

However, the ACCC and the Tribunal expected that cards and vouchers would continue to be widely accepted absent authorisation. Taxi operators and drivers are entitled to advertise the cards and vouchers they accept. Should certain taxi operators and drivers not accept certain cards and vouchers, but advertise on their taxis that these cards are accepted, such could amount to misleading conduct."

The reality is, because of your earlier "Authorisation", taxi owners and drivers were compelled to display Cabcharge decals in taxis and thereby accepting them became a norm in the taxi industry. Now, the "Authorisation" is no longer in force and importantly taxis do not have to display them even though many would not be aware of that decision and revocation!

In view of your advice of 18 April 2008, what I have asked you is to inform all taxi drivers, owners and operators that the "Authorisation" is no longer in force and they don't have to display Cabcharge decals. Surely, it is not a hard job to follow up on.

With thanks

Sincerely yours



Faruque Ahmed
Wednesday, June 18, 2008


Background:

Further to Cabcharge and Criminals and Merger and Acquisition by Cabcharge Limited and other documents below;
1. Back in 1984 the "Taxi Mafia" obtained the authorisation incorrectly and they failed to tell the truth to the ACCC on that time,
2. Since then, we have been asking to remove that authorisation,
3. The "Taxi Mafia" made a few attempts to fool the ACCC later but failed and
4. The Australian Competition Tribunal removed the authorisation of 1984!
Naturally, I asked the ACCC to inform all taxi drivers and owners that they don't have to display the Cabcharge decals as it is no longer required by the law because of the recent court decision!

I was not expecting an immature legal lecture from some one from the ACCC, who in my view acted like a defense lawyer of the Cabcharge Limited. Ironically, during the court proceedings, the mighty Cabcharge was hiding!!

Merger and Acquisition by Cabcharge Limited

Faruque Ahmed
P O Box – 349
Alexandria – 2015
Mobile: 041 091 4118
Email: union_faruque@yahoo.com.au
Blog: Members of Parliament and Media Outlets

Tuesday, June 10, 2008


Mr. Graeme Samuel
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission

GPO Box 3131

CANBERRA ACT 2601

Ph: 02 6243 1244Fax: 02 6243 1210

Email: foi@accc.gov.au

Re: Merger and Acquisition by Cabcharge Limited


Dear Mr. Samuel

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,
3. President, NSW Cabbie Welfare Association and
4. Media Manager, NSW Taxi Drivers Association. I am also a working bailee taxi driver.

Taxi co-operatives (not taxi companies or networks) obtained the authorisation A30112 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.

Since then, we have been asking the ACCC and other relevant departments to remove the Authorization A30112. Surprisingly, they were very reluctant about it. Eventually, the Australian Competition Tribunal removed the Authorisation (Matter No - 3 of 2005) as we have been requesting.

Yet, even today;

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 Limited dockets and credit cards,
4. I am compelled to provide my private details to a company with whom I have no contractual relations, and
5. Because of my free labor and miseries mentioned in "1" to "4" above the Cabcharge Limited is making huge amount of money and buying up various taxi industry instrumentalities and thereby reducing and eventually destroying competition in the taxi industry and
6. The State and Federal Government provided unfair advantage to Cabcharge Limited are effectively restricting any new comers to open up any new ventures in the taxi industry,

I therefore would like to request you to register me as an interested party and inform me should the Cabcharge Limited intends to acquire or merger with any taxi industry body or instrumentalities as these activities would affect me, the taxi industry and society in general adversely.

Sincerely Yours

Faruque Ahmed