I really feel for taxi drivers right now.
While many businesses are having to shut up shop because they do not want to turn away unvaccinated* customers, taxis have the opposite problem: they're not allowed to turn away the unvaccinated.
This week the Taxi Federation called on the government to remove the prohibition on taxi drivers (which includes rideshare drivers) being able to require vaccine passes and turn away unvaccinated passengers. RNZ reports:
Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said taxis were considered public transport and therefore did not require My Vaccine Pass.
"The government has been careful to balance the need to keep people safe from Covid-19 while ensuring everyone can access food, medicine and transport."
My initial reaction? This seems nuts.
After a bit of thinking, I still think this is nuts. But it also gets to some gritty issues around what constitutes a life preserving service, the regulation of private businesses, and trading off different people's rights against each other.
What constitutes a life preserving service?
Oh no. I fear debating this is about as straightforward as MBIE trying to define what counts as an essential service. Here's how taxis seem to fall into the criteria:
The linked briefing is the most fitting official document I've managed to find on the topic (if I got this wrong, I'm only willing to take half the blame: finding any kind of information on the traffic light system seems to lead to endless clickholes).
Now, I don't think anyone except the meanest anti-anti-vaxxers would argue with the intention of the policy. But the way the policy is applied is going to capture a lot of non life-preserving travel. Taxi drivers aren't just prohibited from turning down an unvaccinated passenger who needs to get to the supermarket or doctor. They're prohibited from turning them down fullstop.
And I'm not a transport expert, but it hurts my brain trying to think of how private businesses can be counted as public transport. I thought I knew what public transport meant: services provided by or contracted by central or local government. When I think public transport, I think buses, ferries and trains. Is Uber now public transport? When did this happen? My entire understanding of private enterprise is ruined.
Definitions aside, I'm also not psyched about just having a blanket prohibition on rejecting unvaccinated passengers. I get why policy wonks like it: it's administratively simple and easy to communicate (because the traffic light system is so easy to follow so far), and easy to enforce. But tidy policy isn't necessarily good for taxi drivers when it exposes them to more risky events than necessary.
Taking away choice about risk tolerances
There might very well be taxi drivers who are willing to take on the risk of unvaccinated passengers. But there are clearly also drivers who are worried, and who are uncomfortable taking on that risk. Not to mention drivers who are old thus vulnerable, or who live with people who can't get vaccinated themselves.
And for the sake of argument, I see the situation of taxi drivers as fundamentally different to the risks taken on by doctors, nurses, or police: they never signed up to protect and save lives. Nor are they comparable to supermarkets where physical distancing is a lot easier to enforce. They're not even comparable to bus drivers who are contracted to perform a public service.
In normal times, there are only limited circumstances under which taxi drivers can turn down a passenger (and now that I think about it, I'm not sure I'm 100% cool with that regulation either, but one battle at a time). But importantly, one of those reasons is if they believe their personal safety is compromised.
Surely the risk of catching Covid is an example of personal safety being compromised? And if not, remind me again why the unvaccinated have fewer rights occupying other businesses under the traffic light system?
Vaccine mandates are a mucky business, but equally mucky is banning the right of private businesses and individuals to take on extra precautions in order to feel safe.
I think the word "feel" here is significant: perceptions of safety have an element of subjectivity. Even if a new study comes out tomorrow saying vaccinated people are just as risky unvaccinated people (vaccine sceptics, don't come at me with said study. I'm aware of the claims, and I'm aware of the critique of the claims), I'd still back the right of individuals to take their own precautions in an extremely uncertain environment.
On the one hand, the government is stopping people from taking on risks that they might be willing to take on. But on the other hand, it is also forcing people to take on risks that they are unwilling to. I mean, force is a strong word. I take that back. Taxi drivers can always just go out of business and become unemployed.
Trading off different people's rights
At the heart of most important Covid responses is the trading off of human rights. I for one am willing to give up a little bit of freedom in the short run if it means a safer, more freedom-filled life in the long run.
Minister Hipkins said that "the government has been careful to balance the need to keep people safe from Covid-19 while ensuring everyone can access food, medicine and transport."
In the case of taxi drivers, the decision seems pretty stark: a taxi driver's right to health is less important than the unvaccinated's right to life preserving services.
As the Taxi Federation puts it:
"We are being forced to provide a service to those that consciously refuse to protect themselves and others, willingly threatening the safety and wellbeing of our communities."
In an ideal world, you wouldn't need to make a trade-off: both sets of rights are important and both sets of rights ought to be advanced. It's stating the obvious to point out that this isn't an ideal world.
Is there a better way?
Full disclosure: I do not work in Covid policy, do not want to work in Covid policy and I don't envy those who have to work on these types of problems every single day. This stuff is hard. But there seem to be at least a few options on the table:
- Narrow the scope. Don't force taxi drivers to drive the unvaccinated to their mates' houses (I was about to say the pub, but they can't go there anyway) or wherever they go for fun these days (the park?). But do ensure they accept trips to actual life preserving services like the doctor or supermarket.
- Don't count private businesses as public transport. That's an option. And if there are areas that aren't well serviced by public transport, I don't see why private businesses should bear the cost (if they choose not to). My first best option is to allow private businesses to choose whether to require a certificate. Call me a free market radical, but I'd be surprised if taxi drivers who are keen to just make a living wouldn't service those areas once the gap in the market has been identified.
- KiwiRide. I didn't say this was a good option. But rather than sticking an arbitrary public transport label on private businesses, why not at least start formally contracting them to provide what is apparently an important public service.