Victoria’s unpopular public transport system has a new logo, with bright colours and a slick, modern “customer-focused” brand. The importance of rebranding, it seems, has not been lost on Melbourne’s new public transport operators who started their contract this week. In the next six months, $35 million will be spent by Metro Trains and Keolis, rebadging trains and trams with their jazzy new corporate design.
It remains to be seen just how much will improve with the new operators. Melbourne’s public transport is beguiled by inadequate funding, outdated infrastructure and a state government that likes building new roads much more than investing in rail. So while train and tram stickers and colours will change (three-tone blue on the trains to be exact), the fundamental problems may not — like the conduct of Victoria’s ticket inspecting authorised officers.
Authorised officers and fines make up the highest percentage of commuter complaints to Melbourne’s Public Transport Ombudsman.
Take for example, one recent case fought by a community legal centre where a young woman was fined by ticket inspectors for not having a ticket. The problem was not only was she waiting in line on a crowded tram when she questioned by the officers, but the girl very obviously had cerebral palsy. A factor that left the authorised officers completely unmoved. Her fine was later waived by the Department of Transport.
The latest report by the Public Transport Ombudsman shows 38% of its complaints are about fines and the conduct of authorised officers. Complaints about authorised officers nearly doubled in the past 12 months and have increased every year for the past five years.
Of the complaints, 31% were about intimidation, 22% about the use of force, the rest were largely about officers not listening or acting aggressively. One of the biggest cause for complaint was that officers travel in groups of up to eight and stand in a circle around people if they don’t have a ticket. It’s a certain indication something is going terribly wrong, if people feeling less rather than more safe with high numbers of public transport staff on their trains.
The Ombudsman told Crikey that with “better communication skills” officers could actually enhance people’s feeling safety on public transport — a novel idea indeed. His other major criticism is the lack of accountability, for example, authorised officers do not even have to make a log of an incident where they have had to use physical force. When authorised officers have detained or held commuters on the ground, they are known for telling passers-by not to watch, film or record the event and sometimes even refuse to give their name or identification. He says it is clear from the many allegations of assault that authorised officers need “about the use of force, including a clear and appropriate definition for excessive or disproportionate use of force”.
That statement appears to be a very understated way of saying high numbers of commuters are being unlawfully assaulted by people employed by their government. One wonders how many more incidents of “force” go unreported.
Youthlaw, an organisation that provides free legal advice and representation to young people in Melbourne, says as much as 20% of their case work involves fines and authorised officers. Currently the legal centre is representing a young person who says he was hospitalised after allegedly being kicked by authorised officers. Another case involves a young man who alleges he was pushed with into a ticket machine after the officer refused to believe his ID card was genuine.
The youth legal centre has recently started a project called “campaign respect” specifically aimed at changing the attitudes of authorised officers. Last month, it surveyed 350 young people who catch public transport, with just under half saying they have felt threatened by the behaviour of authorised officers. Like the Ombudsman’s report, most complained of feeling intimidated — more than 30% reported “aggressive body language’, 34% “not being listened to”, 38% being talked over and 8% claimed to be victims of unnecessary physical force.
Youthlaw is calling on the new operators to make authorised officers to adhere to their own code of conduct, be given more discretionary power, stop their “guilty until proven innocent approach” and be given more thorough training.
While others, such as the Public Transport Users Association, say authorised officers are granted too many powers under the Transport Act and until this is changed, the number of complaints will continue to escalate.
The extent of officer powers is certainly worth examining; there is also a strong argument to suggest ticket inspectors need these mechanisms to ensure they can be an effective deterrent to fare evasion. Indeed, the problem may not actually be the Act itself — but the massive gap between the authorised officers’ very extensive powers and their extremely limited training.
Officers are only required to undertake a one week Law and Procedure Course and three weeks of operator training, made up of classroom and field training. It’s remarkably inadequate training for someone who has state sanctioned power to arrest, detain, remove from a carriage and use “reasonable force” if they feel it necessary.
It is any wonder authorised officers often aren’t following their own code of conduct, at 47 pages — a few weeks is hardly enough time to memorise it.
An extensive review of the training and perhaps selection of authorised officers is needed.
“Metro will double the investment in training and development and will review all current practices to ensure we deliver improved customer service and a better overall customer experience,” Leah Waymark, corporate relations manager from Metro Trains told Crikey.
It’s hard to know exactly what that means just yet. But let’s hope, it means more discretion, manners and common sense — and less aggression and force and certainly no more penalties for the severely disabled on Melbourne’s public transport soon.
Take one step back from trying to define what would be reasonable force that a ticket inspector could use and ask the question – should they have any right to use any force at all? Consider what their job is – to check tickets and stop fare evasion on our public transport.
To have the right to physically detain someone because they don’t have a ticket is pretty ridiculous when you think about it.
Perhaps rather than wasting money on teaching them how to detain people they should be taught to weigh up the ‘offence’ and consider whether it is worth actually assaulting or potentially assaulting someone. After all, police officers are expected to make this judgement and they actually do deal with crime.
A clear, sensible article that covers all that is wrong with public transport in Melbourne. Oh that we had the investment in public transport that has been given to roads!!!! Imagine – conductors back on trams, a ticket service that worked and didn’t cost a fortune to develop, trains that worked in any weather, a dedicated train line out to the airport, new trains……well, I could go on.
The state government’s failure to implement in full the various transport plans it has developed over the past 10 years is a blot on their record. The behaviour of the ‘goon squad’ as I call them needs to controlled – while many are pleasant people doing their job and checking tickets, some just seem to be looking for trouble. Yet nothing gets done despite the number of complaints – or will we see some action in an election year?
Very good.
This has been going on for years. Plenty of publicity, but the Govt. did nothing. What does that say about the incumbent “social democrat” party?
“That statement appears to be a very understated way of saying high numbers of commuters are being unlawfully assaulted by people employed by their government. ”
Why do Melburnians put up with fascistic thuggery?
What needs to be understood in this situation is that transport fares collect approximately $500 million a year as a contribution towards part of the cost of the provision of public transport which is at least twice or perhaps three times the actual revenue collected.
Unfortunately there is a culture amongst elements of the travelling public that they should not have to pay. If one does the simple gaming calculation, if the probability of being caughtis less than 2% it is cheaper to avoid buying a ticket and paying the fine. The vast majority of travellers are prepared to pay their way and avoid embarrassment of apprehension. There is a hard-core of determined fare evaders who understand the gaming calculation and cheerfully pay the fine as it is cheaper than buying a ticket. Also there is a hard core of sociopaths fare evaders for whom violent assault, spitting scratching and vile abuse are the order of the day.
I have personally observed a fare evader give a false name and address when she didn’t have a ticket, a subterfuge which finally came to an end when she was asked to corroborate her identity by ringing a contact on her mobile phone. When her cover was finally blown, she resorted to vile abuse.
I have spoken to ticket checking staff and heard horrific stories of violent assault on authorised officers. It is little wonder when dealing with the underbelly of society that their attitude may become hardened and that on the grounds of occupational health and safety they must work in groups. Without a significant and effective enforcement process fare invasion would become endemic. However there is no excuse for authorised officers if they use undue force. The practical reality is that difficult fare evaders must be dealt with forcefully or the system cannot work.