glossary and abbreviations · web viewreport of the review into public transport ticketing...

Report of the Review into Public Transport Ticketing Compliance and Enforcement – May 2016Glossary and abbreviations........................................................................................................................................... 3Report summary............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Context......................................................................................................................................................................... 5Current arrangements for fare compliance and enforcement...........................................................................................6Behavioural aspects of fare evasion............................................................................................................................... 7Issues raised by stakeholders........................................................................................................................................ 8Analytical assessment................................................................................................................................................. 11Developing a fairer policy framework............................................................................................................................ 14Operational reforms to support the fairer policy framework............................................................................................15

Part A CONTEXT........................................................................................................................................................... 18Background.................................................................................................................................................................. 18

Why is this review taking place and what is being examined?.......................................................................................20Review framework and process................................................................................................................................... 21

Stakeholder consultations........................................................................................................................................ 21

Structure of this report................................................................................................................................................. 21

Current system of fare compliance and enforcement.................................................................................................23Victoria’s ticketing law framework................................................................................................................................. 23Responsibilities for maximising fare compliance...........................................................................................................24Overview of compliance strategy................................................................................................................................. 24

‘On-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme........................................................................................................................... 25

Public transport infringement system........................................................................................................................ 26

Comparison of penalty fares and the ticketing infringement system...........................................................................26

Behavioural aspects of fare evasion............................................................................................................................ 27Part B WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED?................................................................................................................... 29Issues raised by stakeholders...................................................................................................................................... 29

Issues raised during the consultation processes...........................................................................................................29The efficiency and fairness of ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme...............................................................................29

Impact of the enforcement regime on vulnerable groups...........................................................................................31

Concession arrangements....................................................................................................................................... 35

The infringement notice process............................................................................................................................... 36

The conduct and training of authorised officers.........................................................................................................37

Impact of changes to fares policy and business rules on the understanding of ticketing requirements.........................38

Analytical assessment of the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime............................................................40Key elements of the analytical framework....................................................................................................................40

Efficiency................................................................................................................................................................. 40

Fairness and equity................................................................................................................................................. 41

Best practice regulatory principles............................................................................................................................ 42

1

Report of the Review into Public Transport Ticketing Compliance and Enforcement May 2016

Features of other systems........................................................................................................................................ 43

Assessment of the current regime against the analytical framework..............................................................................43Results of assessment: efficiency and fairness/equity...............................................................................................44

Results of assessment: alignment with best practice regulatory techniques and other similar systems........................45

Conclusion: identifying opportunities for improvement and reform.................................................................................46

Part C opportunities for reform.................................................................................................................................... 47Developing a fairer policy framework.......................................................................................................................... 47

the need for a policy framework................................................................................................................................... 47What should the policy framework aim to achieve?.......................................................................................................48Towards greater transparency..................................................................................................................................... 49

Operational reforms..................................................................................................................................................... 51Changes to the two-tier enforcement approach............................................................................................................51Ticketing and other system improvements...................................................................................................................53Modifications to the infringements system....................................................................................................................54

Improved processing arrangements.........................................................................................................................54

More embedded processes for the exercising of discretion.......................................................................................55

Measures to reduce the impact of the infringement system on persons with special circumstances............................55

Better targeting of repeat offenders.......................................................................................................................... 57

Assessment of the resourcing of the infringement functions......................................................................................57

Summary of recommendations about modifications to the infringement system.........................................................57

Measures to improve training and support for authorised officers..................................................................................58

Appendix A: Compliance and enforcement models in other jurisdictions and portfolio areas..................................60Public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement overseas..................................................................................60

United Kingdom....................................................................................................................................................... 60

Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy........................................................................................................61

United States........................................................................................................................................................... 62

Germany................................................................................................................................................................. 64

France.................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement in other Australian jurisdictions..................................................65New South Wales.................................................................................................................................................... 65

Western Australia.................................................................................................................................................... 67

Queensland............................................................................................................................................................. 69

South Australia........................................................................................................................................................ 71

Summary of arrangements in other jurisdictions........................................................................................................73

Victorian compliance and enforcement models in other portfolio areas..........................................................................75CityLink Toll enforcement......................................................................................................................................... 75

Victoria Police – speeding infringement compliance and enforcement.......................................................................76

City of Melbourne – parking infringement compliance and enforcement.....................................................................79

Appendix B Related references.................................................................................................................................... 80

2


Glossary and abbreviationsAuthorised officer A person who is employed by public transport operators and authorised by the Victorian Government to check tickets and provide customer information.

Concession entitlement Concession (ie, reduced) fares apply throughout Victoria. Only a customer who is eligible for concession may use a concession ticket.

The following customers are eligible to travel using a concession ticket:

asylum seekers;

Australian Pensioner Concession Card holders;

children 16 years and under;

eligible primary, secondary and tertiary students;

holders of a Health Care Card with a Victorian address;

Victorian and interstate Seniors Card holders;

war veterans/war widows.

CCTV Closed circuit television, also known as video surveillance, is the use of video cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors.

DEDJTR Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources

Fare evasion Travelling without a valid ticket and travelling on a concession ticket when an individual is not entitled to do so.

Farebox Also known as fare revenue, the total amount of revenue collected from public transport fares. Fare revenue forms part of consolidated revenue.

Free tram zone A free tram zone operates within the Melbourne central business district. Tram users are not required to touch on their myki cards if travelling entirely within this zone.

‘Gaming’ of the system This term refers to people deliberately taking a calculated risk to fare evade, based on a rationalised cost benefit analysis including the likelihood and cost of being caught or penalised.

‘High risk’ fare evaders People who regularly and intentionally travel on the public transport system without a valid ticket despite being able to afford to travel with a valid ticket.

Infringement notice A notice provided to an individual who has committed an alleged offence on the public transport system. In Victoria, an infringement notice is issued by DEDJTR following the receipt of a valid report of non-compliance from authorised officers.

Internal review A process stipulated under the Infringements Act 2006, by which an authority determines if an infringement should be upheld or dismissed, withdrawn, or replaced by a warning.

Infringements Act 2006 The piece of legislation that sets out the standard framework for managing the issuing of infringements and their enforcement in Victoria.

Infringements Court A division of the Magistrates’ Court, which deals with the processing and enforcement of infringement notices and penalties. In relation to public transport infringements, the Infringements Court issues enforcement orders and infringement warrants to enforce unpaid fines. It also decides on applications for revocation (applications to have an enforcement order cancelled) and payment orders (orders setting out the terms of a payment plan on an enforcement order or infringement warrant).

3


Infringement system Refers to the administrative and legal processes and actions that enforce an infringement notification. The infringement system includes the issuing of fines, internal reviews, appeal processes, reminder notices and Magistrates’ and Infringements Court proceedings.

Magistrates’ Court If an appeal of an infringement is rejected by the internal review process, an individual can elect to refer the matter to the Magistrates’ Court. At the Magistrates’ Court, the appellant will be required to plead guilty or not guilty or request a diversion. The prosecution acting on behalf of DEDJTR has to prove that an authorised officer believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed. The Magistrate will determine if the infringement is upheld or not and the applicable fines.

myki The electronic public transport ticketing system used for public transport system in Melbourne and regional commuter corridors.

myki pass A myki pass can be bought for 7 consecutive days of travel, or anywhere between 28 and 365 consecutive days of travel. The pass cannot be suspended and travel must occur on consecutive travel days only. Once activated, the myki pass expires after the number of days selected, even if the pass is not used on someof those days.

myki money Pay as you go form of myki using pre-paid value stored on the card. The cost of each trip is deducted from the balance on the myki card.

myki touch on/off The myki ticketing system requires users to touch on to validate their ticket and to touch off at the end of their journey (subject to the mode of transport and zones travelled). Users are required to touch on/off on machines on bollards, or gates, or pole mounted machines.

Negative balance myki tickets have the ability to go into negative balance to allow a transport user to complete a journey on a single mode of transport. However, a myki with negative balance becomes invalid for any further legs of a multi-modal trip.

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Official warning Used in infringement systems across jurisdictions and agencies, an official warning is sometimes issued in place of a penalty for a first offence, usually based on a prior record of good compliance behaviour.

‘On-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme Introduced on the Victorian metropolitan public transport network in August 2014, a penalty fare may be offered for ticketing offences as an alternative to the well-established infringements system. The penalty fare is $75 has to be paid by credit/debit card on the spot, and no personal details are taken. The penalty fare does not provide the right to an internal review.

Public Transport Ombudsman (PTO) The PTO was established in 2004, as a not for profit, independent dispute resolution body, providing a free, fair, informal and accessible service for the resolution of complaints about Victorian public transport operators, who are members of the PTO scheme. The PTO is independent from the transport operators and government.

Public Transport Victoria (PTV) Established under the Transport Integration Act 2010, PTV is the subordinate statutory authority that acts as part of the transport portfolio under DEDJTR, with the primary objective of planning, coordinating, providing, operating and maintaining a safe, punctual, reliable and clean public transport system consistent with the vision statement and transport system objectives contained in Act.

Recidivist fare evaders See ‘high risk’ fare evaders.

Report of non-compliance (RONC)Issued to people who have been intercepted without a valid ticket or without proof of a valid concession entitlement by authorised officers. A report of non-compliance records the time, date, personal details and details of the alleged offence.

Special circumstances Defined in the Infringements Act 2006, means persons with: a mental or intellectual disability, disorder, disease or illness; a serious addiction to drugs, alcohol or a volatile substance; or who are homeless. The definition then requires that these persons could not control or understand their offending conduct because of their condition or situation. The recognition of ‘special circumstances’ in the Infringements Act 2006 is to ensure that certain members of the community are not unfairly caught up in the infringement system, through providing flexibility in the system so that special circumstances of individuals can be considered.

Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 The piece of legislation that contains the more serious offences relating to ticketing. Among other things, it provides for the making of regulations; determining and publishing of statutory 4


conditions governing the entitlement to use a public transport service; authorisation of persons for the purposes of enforcement; and the option of the payment of a penalty fare.

Transport Integration Act 2010 The overarching legislation that creates the framework for the provision of an integrated and sustainable transport system in Victoria. This Act sits over the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and other transport laws.

Transport operators Current public transport operators in Victoria include: Metro Trains Melbourne, V/Line, VicTrack, Yarra Trams, TransDev, myki, Southern Cross Station, and bus operators and various bus operators represented by BusVic.

Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006 Regulations made under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983, which contain, amongst other things, the main ticketing offences and associated court penalties; defences to ticket offences; the amount of the penalty fare; provisions relating to ticket contracts and certain ticket conditions.

Travel Access Pass PTV offers a free pass for people with significant permanent physical or mental disability who travel independently on Victoria’s public transport network and can demonstrate that due to their disability they cannot use the myki ticketing systems.

Victorian Ombudsman The Victorian Ombudsman is an independent officer of the Victorian Parliament. Her office investigates complaints about administrative actions taken by Victorian government agencies, including departments (such as DEDJTR), most statutory authorities (such as PTV), and local government. The Victorian Ombudsman has conducted a number of investigations and inquiries into aspects of public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement.

Report summaryContextA well-funded and well-functioning public transport system is vital to the efficient movement of people around Victoria. It provides people with mobility and access to employment, education, retail, recreational and community facilities. It plays an important role in relieving urban traffic congestion and provides environmental benefits. Meanwhile, a reliable and affordable public transport system increases the attractiveness of Victoria as a place to visit and study, and improves the international reputation of the state.

Historically, around 30 per cent of the cost of operating public services in Victoria is funded through fare revenue, with the balance coming from a taxpayer-funded subsidy. While compliance with ticketing requirements in Victoria has reached record high levels – as shown Figure 1, fare compliance on the metropolitan network as a whole reached 96.2 per cent in October 2015 – fare evasion still costs the system many millions of dollars a year in terms of lost revenue. This can have implications for service provision and/or the level of subsidy. The compliance and enforcement of ticketing is, therefore, an important element of the public transport system.

There have been significant changes to ticketing enforcement action in recent years, most notably with:

the introduction of the penalty fare scheme in August 2014, which runs in parallel with the well-established public transport infringement system, effectively creating a two-tier enforcement approach to public transport ticketing; and

a significant increase in the number of authorised officers who are responsible for enforcing ticketing regulations, with the deployment of multi-modal authorised officers to work across all modes on the public transport network, including areas where there was a previously limited enforcement presence.

While fare compliance has risen, there have been concerns raised by stakeholders – and reflected in investigations and commentary by the Public Transport Ombudsman and Victorian Ombudsman – and some loss in public confidence about the ‘fairness’ of some aspects of the system.

In December 2015, the Minister for Public Transport asked the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) to undertake a review of ticketing compliance and enforcement in Victoria, with the overarching objective of ’striking an appropriate balance between efficiency, fairness and equity’.

The primary areas of focus of this review have been:

5


the ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fares scheme – including its interaction with the well-established ticketing infringement system;

establishing an overarching policy framework to guide ticketing compliance and enforcement; and

identifying improvements that can be made in the short term to other aspects of current ticketing compliance and enforcement arrangements.

This report presents analysis and makes recommendations about reforms in these areas. In reaching its conclusions, the review team has had regard to:

the views and evidence of key stakeholders, which have been gathered through a consultation process;

work that has been undertaken on the behavioural aspects of fare evasion;

an analytical framework that incorporates the overarching objectives and decision-making principles of the transport system, public transport compliance and enforcement policies in other jurisdictions and portfolio areas, and general best practice regulatory principles, particularly in relation to compliance and enforcement.

The main elements and findings of the review are summarised on page 10.

Current arrangements for fare compliance and enforcementThe Transport Integration Act 2010 sets out the framework for the provision of an integrated and sustainable transport system in Victoria. It contains the overarching objectives for the transport system and key decision-making principles, including in relation to social and economic inclusion, and economic prosperity.

Within this broader legislative framework for the state’s transport system, the primary legal instrument that governs ticketing on Victoria’s public transport network is the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006, which are made pursuant to the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. These Regulations require and regulate the use of tickets for Victoria’s public transport system “with the intention of supporting the collection of revenue for that system and reducing fare evasion and the consequential revenue losses incurred by public transport operators and the State”.1

Another key instrument in the ticketing framework is the Victorian Fares and Ticketing Manual, made as a statutory condition under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983,2 which sets out the conditions for using public transport services and specifies the fares payable and the rules for validity of those tickets. The Manual contains detailed information on the different types of tickets, fares, concession arrangements, and how to use and manage myki cards.

A number of strategies are currently pursued to promote compliance with the ticketing requirements, including:

ongoing attempts to make the ticketing system easier to use (eg, increasing the number of retail outlets that sell myki cards, improved signage, increasing the number of next generation myki reader machines at stations and on trams, the ability to top-up myki cards online in a timely way, and automatic top-up arrangements);

marketing and education, including information campaigns designed to encourage and ‘normalise’ fare compliance, and continually educate users on how to use the ticketing system;

ticket barriers at major train stations; and

enforcement activities undertaken by authorised officers.

In terms of ticketing enforcement, authorised officers patrol the public transport network and conduct inspections of tickets. If an authorised officer believes a ticketing offence has occurred (eg, a valid ticket and/or appropriate evidence to concession is not held or produced) they can currently:

offer the passenger the option of paying an on-the-spot penalty fare of $75; or

make a report to the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) who may issue the passenger with an infringement notice resulting in a fine.

A comparison of these ‘two tiers’ of the ticketing enforcement system is provided in Box 1.

Box 1 Comparison of the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme and the ticketing infringement system1 See regulation 1(a) of Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006.

2 Section 220D of the Act.

6


Penalty Fare Infringement Notice

Introduced in August 2014 on a trial basis; issued at discretion of authorised officers

Well-established process, within the general framework of the Infringements Act 2006

$75, paid immediately Minimum $223, payable later* ($76 for those under 18 years old)

Payable by debit/credit card; no cash All payment types accepted

Not available to those aged under 18 years All ages covered

Metropolitan area only Metropolitan and V/Line areas

Does not apply to multiple or behavioural offences+ Used for multiple offences+

Personal details do not have to be provided Must provide and verify name and address

No internal review process, although PTV will receive complaints. Unresolved issues can be escalated to the Public Transport Ombudsman

Can be appealed – internal review by DEDJTR, as required by statute. Matters can be escalatedto the Magistrates’ Court

Notes:

* If the infringement fine is not paid by the due date, it is subject to a staged, escalation process.

+ Authorised officers also enforce non-ticketing regulations on public transport, such as behavioural offences relating to smoking, littering, putting feet on seats, and the use of indecent, obscene, offensive or threatening language.

Behavioural aspects of fare evasionThere is a growing literature on the psychology of fare evasion, and advances in behavioural science more generally, which provide valuable insights to inform the development of effective strategies to improve compliance.

For example, behavioural research undertaken by Monash University’s Institute of Transport Studies highlights the need to focus enforcement efforts on recidivist, high frequency and deliberate fare evaders. Since they represent a relatively small group – but also account for most of the revenue lost through fare evasion – targeting them can be cost effective in terms of both costs and return on lost fare revenue. At the same time, the research suggests that policy needs to be sympathetic to, and assist, ‘inadvertent’ fare evaders3 because they represent a considerable proportion of total public transport users, yet have a smaller overall impact in terms of revenue loss and are unlikely to reoffend.

Meanwhile, the growing prominence of ‘nudge theory’ in public policy development suggests that ticketing compliance could be improved through positive reinforcement of desired behaviours – for example, by rewarding those users with excellent records of compliance.4

3 ‘inadvertent’ fare evaders tendto be low frequency public transport users and hence are less experienced than most the way the ticketing compliance system works.

4 Nudge theory is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and economics that argues that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions aimed at achieving ‘non-forced’ compliance can influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals, at least as effectively – if not more effectively – than direct instruction, legislation, or enforcement.

7


Issues raised by stakeholdersA targeted public consultation process was undertaken as part of the review process. The external stakeholders consulted included representatives of:

public transport users, including vulnerable sections of the community;

the Public Transport Ombudsman and Victorian Ombudsman;

transport operators and employees; and

the legal system.

The main issues and suggestions for improvements raised during the consultation process can be summarised as follows:

The ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme has streamlined enforcement activity, allowing more tickets to be checked. However, some stakeholders consider the scheme to be inequitable because it is only available to those who are able to pay upfront, which means that those on low incomes and other vulnerable groups are often unable to access the scheme. There appears to be a wide perception that users are pressured into accepting a penalty fare, rather than choosing to enter the infringement system, without realising that, by doing so, they waive their right to an internal review.

The current enforcement strategy has a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and public transport users with special circumstances (eg, those with a mental/intellectual disability, homelessness, serious addiction, those in severe financial difficulty). Stakeholders are calling for better ways of identifying such vulnerable users and providing them with appropriate support.

Concession arrangements are complex and confusing, and should be simplified. Those travelling on concession fares should be given more time to provide evidence of their entitlement.

There continue to be criticisms about the behaviour and manner of authorised officers, with many users feeling threatened or intimidated, or unsure about the officers’ roles, responsibilities and powers. There is a view that authorised officers should receive more regular – and more consistent – training, particularly in customer service and in dealing with users who have special circumstances.

There is frustration about the processes supporting the infringement notice system. There are often long processing delays, which may suggest inadequate resourcing. There is a lack of confidence that individual circumstances have been given sufficient consideration during the internal review process. There is a view that greater transparency is needed about the factors taken into account during reviews, and that greater benefit of the doubt should be given for claims of inadvertent non-compliance.

A number of fares policy and business rules changes made over time have contributed to confusion about the ticketing system, are contributing to inadvertent non-compliance. This can be a particular problem for tourists, international students and people from migrant/culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The current enforcement regime is deterring some people from using the public transport system. Other measures are recommended to improve compliance, such as the introduction of loyalty schemes or ‘rewards’ to users, recognising good behaviour in terms of ticketing compliance.

Further detail about the main issues raised by external stakeholders is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Main issues raised by external stakeholders

Theme Stakeholder comments

On-the-spot penalty fare scheme

There is confusion about the penalty fare scheme, particularly in relation to lack of appeal rights and how to complain.

Because of the ‘on-the-spot’ nature of the scheme – and the pressure and intimidation felt by some when confronted by authorised officers – many users are unable to make a rational, informed choice about whether to accept a penalty fare (rather than opt to enter the infringement notice process). As a result, inadvertent fare evaders are accepting a penalty fare when their interests may be better served by seeking a review under the infringement

8



system.

The penalty fare scheme is not equitable because it discriminates against those who do not have the funds or credit to pay upfront.

The penalty fare of $75 is too high; it is more like a ‘pseudo fine’ rather than a penalty ‘fare’.

Penalty fare transactions are quick and easy. The streamlined process has allowed authorised officers to check more tickets. Not requiring personal details can be less embarrassing and stressful for the passenger, helping to avoid confrontations with authorised officers.

The penalty fare scheme is a revenue-raising initiative rather than a genuine enforcement tool.

The lack of fairness in the penalty fare scheme is disenfranchising some users, who may try to cheat the system as a form of protest.

Vulnerable groups (including users with special circumstances)

There should be free access to public transport for certain groups of vulnerable people.

Vulnerable groups are rarely able to afford to pay the upfront penalty fare, and so are forced into the infringement system. Because they often accumulate multiple infringements, it can take years to negotiate the system. Even when infringements are revoked by the courts on the basis of special circumstances, a finding of guilt is made, which can adversely affect future employment opportunities.

A more flexible approach is needed to the evidentiary requirements in establishing special circumstances.

There needs to be better ways of identifying those with special circumstances so that they do not get ‘trapped’ in the infringement system, but are instead diverted to appropriate forms of social services support.

The myki system should be able to ‘interact’ with a register of vulnerable people.

The cost of court proceedings to pursue payment of unpaid fines from those with special circumstances and children are high, with a low success rate of recouping the unpaid fines.

There is a disproportionate impact of public transport fines on vulnerable Victorians, who often cannot afford to pay. Concessionary fines should be available. Integration with the soon-to-be implemented work and development permit scheme – which allows a person to expiate an infringement offence by participating in unpaid work, undertaking educational, vocational or life skills courses, undergoing mental health or medical treatment, receiving financial or other counselling – should be beneficial.

Concession arrangements

A significant proportion of offences involve the failure of those travelling on a concession ticket to provide evidence of entitlement because they have neglected to carry the appropriate form of identification. In such circumstances, concession card holders should be able to present their identification within a specified timeframe.

The conditions and application of travel concessions are particularly complex and confusing. Retailers sometimes sell the wrong type of concession ticket to users, and there is also confusion around the identification required to prove entitlement.

Authorised Officers Authorised officers should have more training, particularly in customer service, and identifying

9



and understanding the needs of vulnerable people. There needs to be greater consistency in training as there appears to be different rules and expectations for authorised officers, depending on who employs (and trains) them.

There is still confusion about the roles, powers and responsibilities of authorised officers.

Little discretion appears to be exercised by the authorised officers to take into account people’s circumstances.

Many users feel and intimidated by authorised officers. These perceptions are heightened because authorised officers travel in groups and wear ‘military-style’ uniforms.

Infringement process issues

The timeliness of infringement processing is poor, suggesting a lack of appropriate resourcing. In particular, there can be long delays between when authorised officers issue a report of non-compliance and when DEDJTR send out an infringement notice.

Those seeking a review of infringement notices receive ‘template’ letters, which reduces confidence that individual circumstances have been taken into account during the review process. This raises doubts about whether procedural fairness has been exercised.

There needs to be clearer guidance about what criteria are taken into account when infringement notices are reviewed.

It is hard for users to contest fines on the basis of technology failure. CCTV evidence is often not available in cases of dispute about whether a myki card has been touched on (ie, validated) because it is only stored for 28 days.

There is a strong view that those with a good travel history/strong record of compliance and a positive balance on their myki card are unlikely to be deliberate fare evaders and should be given the benefit of appealing an alleged ticketing offence. More benefit of the doubt should be given.

System issues There can be insufficient opportunities and locations for purchasing or adding value to myki cards in suburban areas. This can force some people to walk long distances in order to obtain a valid myki card.

Delays between topping up myki cards online and the value appearing on the card can mean there are insufficient funds at the time of travel.

Different (and changing) rules for myki card touching on/off between modes of transport and in different zones are adding to confusion, leading to greater levels of inadvertent fare evasion.

The ability to go into negative balance on myki also contributes to confusion and inadvertent fare evasion. [A negative balance allows the completion of a single modal trip, but not a multi-modal trip that requires a change of vehicle.]

The upgrading of handheld devices used by authorised officers could improve processing times, and provide more information that would facilitate more discretion in cases of inadvertent fare evasion or special circumstances.

There appears to be particular confusion for users about the interface between V/Line and bus fares in regional areas.

System efficiency would be improved if bus passengers were allowed to board vehicles through the back door during peak periods.

Some people who buy a myki card think/expect the card to already have value on it that allows them to travel.

10



Other Some stakeholders suggested the introduction of loyalty schemes or measures to ‘reward’ good behaviour in terms of ticketing compliance.

Poor experiences and bad publicity surrounding ticketing enforcement measures may be ’scaring’ people away from using Victoria’s public transport system (which has a detrimental effect on fare revenue). Tourists and international students, in particular, appear to experience a great deal of confusion. This is having a negative impact on Melbourne’s international reputation.

Analytical assessmentThe review adopts an analytical framework that incorporates concepts of efficiency, fairness and equity, and best practice regulatory characteristics and principles. As illustrated by Figure 2, by assessing Victoria’s current ticketing compliance and enforcement regime against this analytical framework, it is possible to identify areas for improvement and reform.

Figure 2 Analytical assessment of the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime

Because ‘efficiency’ and ‘fairness’ can be amorphous concepts in the analysis of public policy, it is useful to understand the considerations that have been taken in account when making assessments about these concepts in the context of this review of ticketing compliance and enforcement. These considerations are summarised in Box 2.

In addition, the following characteristics of best practice regulation and regulatory enforcement are important in the assessment of the effectiveness of Victoria’s ticketing compliance and enforcement approach:

Transparency: The rules for ticketing compliance should be clear to users, as should the processes surrounding the enforcement of these requirements. Ticketing compliance should be promoted through the provision of public information.

Subject to appeal: There should be transparent and robust mechanisms to appeal against decisions made by a regulatory body. (This characteristic is also picked up as part of fairness considerations – ie, the right to a fair hearing).

Box 2 Concepts of ‘efficiency’ and ‘fairness’ in the context of ticketing compliance and enforcement

‘Efficiency’

While a high rate of fare compliance may indicate an efficient system, the level of efficiency should be considered within the context of the resources used to achieve the level of compliance. Priorities should be established to promote an ‘efficient’ allocation of the available enforcement resources so as to maximise the achieved level of compliance. This means that enforcement should be focused on ‘high risk’ parties – in the public transport sphere, this means users with a poor record of compliance (ie, repeat fare evaders).

It is recognised that achieving 100% compliance of any regulation is impractical and can be costly. In the case of public transport ticketing, behavioural factors and system failures mean there will always be some level of non-compliance.

The costs of compliance and enforcement activities should be proportionate to the costs of non-compliance. For example, any additional costs devoted to compliance and enforcement activity should not exceed the ‘gain’ in fare revenue from the reduced fare evasion that results from that extra activity.

Victoria’s overarching system of infringements is designed to deal with minor offences without the need to proceed to court hearings (which can be costly and resource-intensive). An efficient system would therefore minimise the number of court proceedings arising from ticketing infringements.

‘Fairness’

The perception of fairness is crucial to the credibility of the compliance and enforcement approach. People that consider the arrangements to be unfair may be more reluctant to comply. Alternatively, they may be more inclined to take their chances in court, adding to the costs of the enforcement system.

11


Consistency and predictability of approach is important to retaining public understanding of, confidence in, and compliance with the enforcement system. If there is a perception of inconsistency, participants may be less likely to engage in the system and non-compliance may rise. Consistency means that those with the same circumstances are treated in the same way.

Equity considerations suggest that people should not be disadvantaged because of their ability to pay. As articulated in the Transport Integration Act 2010, equity considerations can also extend to attributes such as location.

The enforcement system should take individual circumstances into account, recognise genuine special circumstances, and provide protection for all individuals, as well as for people in special circumstances (eg, mental/intellectual disability, homelessness, serious addictions, and those in genuine financial difficulty). Such an approach is supported by administrative law principles. This is consistent with the administrative law principle that mitigates against inflexible application of policy. It is permissible for administrative bodies and decision makers to develop policies on how they will exercise discretionary powers in particular cases, but they cannot do so in a way that applies the policy without regard or apparent regard for the merits of the applicant’s case.

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities contains elements that are relevant to the ‘fairness’ of ticketing enforcement. For example, the charter provides for rights to:

a fair hearing;

recognition and equality before the law; and

protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment – this includes protection from treatment that humiliates a person.

Table 2 summarises the review’s assessment of the efficiency, fairness and equity of the current arrangements for ticketing compliance and enforcement in Victoria, and consistency with the best practice regulatory principles. Particular attention has been paid to an assessment of the penalty fare scheme as it has been a key focus of the review.

Table 2 Summary of the analytical assessment

Criteria Assessment

‘Efficiency’ Because it is a streamlined process (eg, no personal details have to be provided and transactions are card-based), the penalty fare scheme speeds up the interactions of authorised officers, allowing for more tickets to be checked.

Current enforcement activity is not targeted towards ‘high risk’ fare evaders – ie, repeat offenders. In fact, the anonymous nature of the penalty fare scheme means that it is not possible to identify recidivist fare evaders. Indeed, it could be argued that the penalty fare scheme encourages fare evasion by deliberate evaders. Fare evaders can pay multiple $75 penalty fares. By offering a lower alternative to the $223 infringement fine, the penalty fare improves the economic rationale for fare evading for those ‘gaming’ the system.

Large numbers of infringement cases are proceeding to court, with close to 5,000 ticketing matters prosecuted in 2014-15 (around 3% of total infringements issued). In particular, infringements involving persons with special circumstances are ending up in the court system, with little prospect of recouping unpaid fines.

The increasing complexity of current ticketing arrangements suggests a lack of efficiency in terms of the ability of transport users to understand their obligations.

‘Fairness’ The two-tier enforcement system is inequitable. Low income groups are less likely to be able to pay an upfront $75 penalty fare than those on higher incomes, nor are they likely to have access to credit/debit cards. Instead of accepting the $75 penalty, the only route open to them is the infringement system, with the much higher minimum fine of $223.

Furthermore, vulnerable groups may not have the time, resources and understanding to appeal an infringement notice.

Because penalty fares are not offered on V/Line services, they seem to discriminate

12


Criteria Assessment

against those in regional areas, which is inconsistent with the principle of equity as articulated in section 17 of the Transport Integration Act 2010.

It could be argued that, because the penalty fare scheme has an eligibility criterion (ie, the ability to pay by debit or credit card), it does not satisfy section 8 of the Charterof Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which provides the right to recognition and equality.

The two tier system does not lend itself to a consistent enforcement approach – eg, different levels of judgement may be exercised (because two different entities are responsible for making those judgements).

Non-compliers with special circumstances are getting ‘trapped’ in the infringement system without adequate recognition of the support they require.

While the infringement system appears to adhere to the principle of procedural fairness through the internal review process, the penalty fare scheme’s procedural fairness is more questionable given the lack of formal appeal rights.

Best practice regulatory principles

There is a lack of transparency in many aspects of the compliance and enforcement arrangements. For example:

The difference between the penalty fare and infringement notice is not well-understood. While authorised officers are required to carry information about the two approaches, passengers may feel under pressure to make a choice ‘on the spot’ and may not make the best decision to suit their circumstances.

There is a lack of information from authorised officers and little public awareness about penalty fare complaints procedures.

Rules for myki ’touching on/off’ and negative balance provisions are becoming increasingly complex and/or difficult for many users to understand – particularly tourists and international students. The introduction of the free tram zone and changes to zone 1+2 fare structures have added to the complexity.

There is a lot of confusion about concession arrangements, including in relation to appropriate forms of identification of entitlement.

The factors taken into account during internal reviews of infringement notices are not clear.

The penalty fare scheme does not appear to meet the regulatory best practice principle of robust appeal provisions.

The key conclusions from this assessment are:

while the introduction of the penalty fare scheme has streamlined enforcement activities, which has contributed to record compliance rates, it has also undermined the fairness of the enforcement regime;

the enforcement regime is not currently targeted towards high risk fare evaders – ie, those who deliberately and repeatedly cheat the system. Indeed, the anonymous nature of the penalty scheme prevents identification of recidivist offenders, and the availability of the $75 penalty fare makes fare evasion more attractive to this group (when compared to the alternative infringement fine of $223);

some ticketing non-compliance arises because of confusion caused by the increasingly complex nature of ticketing arrangements, including concession identification to prove entitlement; and

large numbers of people with special circumstances are not being identified earlier enough in the infringement process, with many cases ending up in the court system, despite the intention of the legislation to divert this cohort away from the criminal justice system.

13


Developing a fairer policy frameworkWhile protecting fare revenue should remain the primary aim of ticketing policy, this review has identified the following features that could be incorporated in the policy framework to ensure a better balance between efficiency and fairness in ticketing compliance and enforcement:

Focusing enforcement activity towards the greater targeting of deliberate and recidivist fare evaders, with more embedded and systematic discretion to exercise leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fines) in cases of inadvertent non-compliance.5

Facilitating the exercise of more discretion at the ‘front end’ of the process (ie, by the DEDJTR issuing officer) to reduce the number of people that are unjustifiably caught up in the infringement system, including those persons with special circumstances.

Recognising the need to make it easier for transport users to comply with ticketing regulations – this may be achieved by promoting measures to facilitate compliance, such as better customer information to improve understanding of the ticketing system, and modifications to the myki system to help to mitigate inadvertent non-compliance.

In moving to a fairer compliance and enforcement system, and in keeping with regulatory best practice, the review recommends that the government provides greater transparency about how it intends to balance efficiency and fairness objectives. This could be achieved by publishing a public statement detailing the government’s compliance and enforcement strategy for public transport ticketing.

This statement should include details of:

the various pieces of legislation, associated regulations, conditions, and other requirements that are relevant to the compliance and enforcement of public transport ticketing in Victoria;

the importance of fare compliance to the public transport system, and the key aims of compliance and enforcement activities;

measures to facilitate compliance with ticketing regulations;

enforcement approaches;

key principles underpinning the enforcement strategy; and

the internal review process – including the factors that may be taken into account when deciding whether to use discretion to exercise leniency.

Operational reforms to support the fairer policy frameworkA number of changes to operational arrangements are needed to support a move towards the proposed policy framework. In particular, the review is recommending changes to the existing two-tier enforcement approach (which comprises the penalty fare scheme and the well-established infringement process).

In examining the appropriate enforcement approach, the review compared the existing arrangements with the following four options for change:

Option 1 – ‘Fairer’ penalty fares: maintaining the current two-tier arrangements, but making the penalty fare ‘fairer’ by allowing it to be paid on the spot or within 28 days, and publicising the ability to make a complaint to PTV or the Public Transport Ombudsman.

Option 2 – Return to the old system: removing the penalty fare scheme and returning to the single tier, well-established infringement system (ie, minimum infringement fine of $223, with the right to appeal through the internal review process).

Option 3 – New system, low fine: removing the penalty fare scheme, issuing warning letters for non-compliance under specific conditions, $75 minimum infringement fine, with the right to appeal through the internal review process.6

5 The review notes that a system of official warnings is already in place and has been increasingly utilised by DEDJTR in recent months. This process would become more embedded and systematic under the proposed approach.

6 Note: A system of official warnings is already in place, and has been increasingly used by DEDJTR in recent months. This process would become more embedded and systematic under this option.

14


Option 4 – New system, compliance-based:compliance-based: removing the penalty fare scheme, issuing warning letters for non-compliance under specific conditions, $223 minimum fine, with the right to appeal through the internal review process. Such an approach is consistent with models adopted in other jurisdictions.

After analysing the strengths and weaknesses of each option, the review considers that implementation of option 4 is the best approach to achieve the objectives of the proposed policy framework, which is designed to provide a better balance between efficiency and fairness. In particular, this approach will:

remove the inequities of the current penalty fare scheme;

result in a single tier infringement system, which should be less complex to administer and less confusing for public transport users;

allow for improved procedural fairness through the internal review process, which would be available to all offenders;

be fairer to those who are inadvertently non-compliant with ticketing requirements, through the embedded and systematic use of discretion to exercise leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fine) under specific conditions (eg, only issued to those with good myki balances, strong records of compliance, and/or special or exceptional circumstances7); and

provide a stronger deterrent to deliberate fare evaders by removing the ability to remain anonymous and removing access to a ‘discounted’ penalty fare.

The implementation of option 4 is also consistent with a best practice, risk-based enforcement strategy – and with the main findings of the work on psychology of fare evasion – which suggest that enforcement activity should be targeted towards recidivist offenders. This model is also similar to models adopted in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and London.

By facilitating the identification of repeat offenders, the proposed approach will allow the infringement system to focus on recidivist fare evaders rather than inadvertent fare evaders (who will largely be dealt with through the warning letter process).

The review is also recommending other changes to operational arrangements, which are designed to support the proposed new enforcement strategy and to reduce the incidence of inadvertent non-compliance.

These include:

modifications to fares policy and business rules – designed to make ticketing and transport user interaction with myki easier to use and understand. Some of these proposed modifications are already underway or have already been implemented (such as a significant reduction in processing times for the online top up of myki cards). In addition, initiatives could be considered to recognise and reward good compliance behaviour by public transport users;

changes to the governance and administration of the infringements system – which include improvements in the way the system deals with those people with special circumstances; and

measures to improve training and support for authorised officers

These proposed changes are outlined in Box 3, which presents a full list of the review’s recommendations.

Box 3 Full list of recommendations

Policy framework (see Part C)

1. While protecting fare revenue should remain the primary aim of ticketing policy, the government should adopt a policy framework that ensures a better balance between efficiency and fairness in ticketing compliance and enforcement by:

7 ‘Exceptional circumstances’ are not defined in the legislation, but may include emergencies, sickness, traumatic events, and events outside the control of transport users.

15


focusing enforcement activity towards the greater targeting of deliberate and recidivist fare evaders, with more embedded and systematic discretion to exercise leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fines) in cases of inadvertent non-compliance;

facilitating the exercise of more discretion at the ‘front end’ of the process (ie, by the DEDJTR issuing officer) to reduce the number of people that are unjustifiably caught up in the infringement system; and

recognising the need to make it easier for transport users to comply with ticketing regulations – for example, by promoting measures to facilitate compliance, such as better customer information to improve understanding of the ticketing system, and modifications to the myki system to help mitigate inadvertent non-compliance.

2. A public statement be released articulating the government’s public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement strategy, which should include details about:

the various pieces of legislation, associated regulations, conditions, and other requirements that are relevant to the compliance and enforcement of public transport ticketing in Victoria;





the internal review process, including the factors that may be taken into account when deciding whether to exercise discretion.

Operational reforms (see Part C)

Operational approach to enforcement

3. The existing two-tier enforcement approach be replaced by a new single-tier compliance-based system, based on a similar model adopted in other jurisdictions. Implementing this new model will involve:

removing the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme;

embedding the systematic use of official warning letters for non-compliance, under specific conditions; and

retaining the existing and well-established infringement system, with a minimum $223 fine and the right to appeal through the internal review process.

Ticketing and system improvements

4. Further education about ‘touch on/touch off’ be implemented through an improved information/education campaign.

5. The roll-out of next generation myki devices be continued.

6. The ability to go into negative balance on myki be removed.

7. The initial charge for a new myki card should include sufficient balance for travel across zone 1+2.

8. The ability of the myki system to process online top-ups within 90 minutes should be promoted.

9. More purchase and top-up opportunities for myki cards be explored.

10. A review be undertaken of the arrangements for concessions (including concession identification arrangements).

11. A review be undertaken of emergency relief ticket product options.

12. The development of a loyalty and reward program be explored to recognise good compliance behaviour by public transport users.

Modifications to the infringements system

16


13. Support be given to the transfer of electronic infringement processing (ie, the collection of fine revenue) to the Department of Justice and Regulation so that it joins the broader Fines Victoria framework.

14. The maximum time between receiving a report of non-compliance and issuing an infringement notice be clarified and communicated.

15. A review be taken of the public information (written and digital) in relation to the infringements system and the internal review process – eg, clarification of when to apply for a review and what evidence is required.

16. DEDJTR will work in conjunction with the Department of Justice and Regulation to update guidelines for internal reviews , particularly for reviews on the grounds of special circumstances where consideration should be given to:

adoption of the City of Melbourne’s Model Operating Policy for Enforcement Agencies; and

referrals to the work and development permit scheme.

17. Options for a court-based offence for recidivist fare evaders (ie, escalation from the infringement system) be explored.

18. Assess the resourcing and capability of DEDJTR’s infringements administration functions to facilitate improved triage of infringements to avoid the need to enter the court system.

Measures to improve training and support for authorised officers

19. A checkbox be added to a report of non-compliance to flag the possible existence of special circumstances.

20. A more consistent approach to authorised officer training is developed, including in the appropriate use of discretion.

21. The paper-based infringement process be phased out and the efficiency of authorised officers be improved by replacing current handheld devices with smartphone and app technology.

22. A marketing/communications program be developed and executed to support the role of authorised officers (ie, improved information about their role, powers, and responsibilities), in addition to regular fare evasion campaigns.

Part A CONTEXT

Background A well-funded and well-functioning public transport system is vital to the efficient movement of people around Victoria. It provides people with mobility and access to employment, education, retail, recreational and community facilities. It plays an important role in relieving urban traffic congestion and provides environmental benefits. Moreover, a reliable and affordable public transport system increases the attractiveness of Victoria as a place to visit and study, and improves the international reputation of the state.

Historically, around 30 per cent of the cost of operating public services in Victoria is funded through fare revenue, with the balance coming from a taxpayer-funded subsidy. While compliance with ticketing requirements in Victoria has reached record high levels, fare evasion still costs the system many millions of dollars a year in terms of lost revenue, which can have implications for service provision and/or the level of subsidy. The compliance and enforcement of ticketing is therefore an important element of the public transport system.

The most recent fare evasion survey published by Public Transport Victoria (PTV) shows that, in October 2015, 96.2 per cent of public transport users were travelling with a valid ticket. As shown in Table 3, this is the highest rate of compliance since records were first compiled in 2005.

A combination of factors has contributed to this historically high compliance rate, including:

an increase in the number of authorised officers patrolling the public transport network to over 600 – including the recruitment between July and September 2014 of 78 multi-modal authorised officers, who can be deployed across all modes of the network and hence target non-compliance ‘hotspots’;

17


new marketing campaigns, which depicted fare evasion as ‘freeloading’, and which emphasised the increased likelihood of those travelling without a valid ticket being intercepted by authorised officers;

the introduction of the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme in August 2014 – the streamlined nature of the scheme means that more tickets can be checked;

the introduction of the free tram zone from 1 January 2015 – which removed the need to have a valid ticket when travelling within Melbourne’s CBD; and

the reduction of the zone 1+2 fare to align with the zone 1 fare in 2015 – meaning that those travelling with a zone 1 ticket now comply with ticketing requirements if they travel in zone 2.

Table 3 Estimated fare compliance rate by mode (2005 to 2015)1

Survey period

Metro train Tram Bus Metro network

Regional train

May 20052 86.5% 80.6%

Oct 2005 89.3% 84.7% 83.9% 86.6%

May 2006 89.4% 86.9% 90.1% 88.6%

Oct 2006 90.4% 88.9% 91.9% 90.1%

May 2007 86.1% 90.8% 91.9% 88.9%

Oct 20073 90.6% 92.9%

May 2008 93.7% 90.2% 92.6% 92.2%

Oct 2008 92.5% 88.0% 93.1% 91.0%

May 2009 92.3% 85.9% 94.4% 90.4%

Oct 2009 91.2% 87.4% 94.1% 90.4%

May 2010 90.6% 83.7% 93.4% 88.7%

Oct 2010 89.0% 81.2% 92.7% 86.9%

May 2001 90.2% 79.7% 90.8% 86.5%

Oct 2011 91.5% 81.6% 92.4% 88.1%

May 2012 88.3% 86.7% 91.7% 88.5%

Oct 2012 91.2% 89.5% 90.9% 90.6% 95.5%

May 2013 90.1% 88.1% 84.0% 88.1% 95.4%

18


Oct 2013 91.6% 92.0% 88.8% 91.1% 94.9%

May 2014 93.7% 91.2% 87.3% 91.3% 95.1%

Oct 2014 95.9% 94.0% 91.3% 94.1% 93.0%

May 2015 97.3% 95.2% 91.3% 95.0% 93.9%

Oct 2015 97.4% 95.2% 94.9% 96.2% 95.1%

Source: PTV, Fare Compliance Summary Results October 2015.

Notes:

1. Fare compliance rates on metropolitan school buses are not measured in the survey and the metropolitan network estimates are exclusive of metropolitan school bus services.

2. Fare compliance on metropolitan buses was first surveyed in October 2005.

3. October 2007 train survey data were not sufficiently robust to support calculation of a result.

Why is this review taking place and what is being examined?While the record high compliance rate suggests that ticketing compliance and enforcement measures are effective in terms of protecting the fare revenue that contributes to the operation of Victoria’s public transport system, there are a number of reasons why a review of the current arrangements is timely – for example:

The ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme, which represents a new form of ticketing enforcement, came into effect in August 2014. Because this scheme was introduced on a trial basis, it is appropriate to examine the effectiveness of this scheme to date and make recommendations about its future.

The Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006, which provide the primary legal framework for ticketing compliance, are due to expire in July 2016. A review of the current arrangements will help inform the remaking of these regulations.

The Public Transport Ombudsman and Victorian Ombudsman have both raised concerns about aspects of public transport fare enforcement, contributing to an erosion in public confidence about the fairness of the current arrangements.8

In December 2015, the Minister for Public Transport asked the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR) to undertake a review of ticketing compliance and enforcement in Victoria, with the overarching objective of striking an appropriate balance between efficiency, fairness and equity.

The terms of reference for the DEDJTR review require consideration of ticketing infringement policy and systems and the making of recommendations in relation to:

the operation of the penalty fares scheme and how the scheme interacts with the ticketing infringements scheme;

policy and procedural design for agencies and operators to deliver the right balance of fairness and equity for all compliance and enforcement;

opportunities to improve ticketing regulations including in relation to infringements;

other options to improve fairness and equity; and

the merits of improving franchisee incentives to better reflect government priorities.

8 See Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into an incident of alleged excessive force used by authorised officers, February 2015, and the Public Transport Ombudsman’s, Annual Report 2015. In January 2016, in response to a large number of complaints received, the Victorian Ombudsman announced the commencement of an ‘own-motion’ investigation into public transport fare enforcement. This investigation is being undertaken independently of DEDJTR’s review.

19


The review team was required to consult individually with stakeholders including the public, rail, tram and bus operators, union representatives, social welfare agencies, and relevant experts.

The initial areas of focus for the review have been:

the penalty fares system – including its interaction with the ticketing infringement scheme, and possible options for reform;

establishing an overarching policy framework to guide the ticketing compliance and enforcement; and

identifying improvements that can be made in the short term to other aspects of current ticketing compliance and enforcement arrangements.

The findings and recommendations arising from the examination of these areas are contained in this report.

Review framework and processIn reaching its conclusions and making recommendations, the review team has had regard to:

the views and evidence of stakeholders, which have been gathered through a targeted consultation process;

public transport compliance and enforcement policies in other jurisdictions (in Australia and overseas);

work that has been undertaken on the behavioural aspects of fare evasion; and

general best practice regulatory principles, particularly in relation to compliance and enforcement.

Stakeholder consultationsThe review team conducted individual face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders in February and March 2016. Some of these stakeholders also provided written submissions to the review following these meetings.

The external stakeholders consulted included representatives of:

public transport users: Public Transport Users Association and University of Melbourne Student Union Legal Services;

vulnerable sections of the community: Council on the Ageing, Justice Connect, Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre, Travellers Aid, Victorian Council of Social Service, and Youthlaw;

ombudsmen: Public Transport Ombudsman and Victorian Ombudsman;

transport operators and employees: Bus Association Victoria, Metro Trains Melbourne, Rail, Tram and Bus Union, Yarra Trams; and

the legal system: Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Children’s Court of Victoria, and Julian Burnside AO QC.

The views and evidence provided by stakeholders are summarised in Part B of this report.

In addition, the review team has engaged with relevant government entities, including PTV, the departments of Justice and Regulation, Premier and Cabinet, and Treasury and Finance, and the division within DEDJTR that oversees the functions of issuing infringement notices and undertaking internal reviews.

Structure of this reportThis report is structured in three parts:

Part A provides contextual information about the review and the current arrangements for public transport compliance and enforcement in Victoria. It also outlines some important behavioural considerations that are useful to understanding some of the drivers of fare compliance.

Part B analysed areas for improvements to the current arrangements.

Part C considers opportunities for reform to the framework for ticketing compliance and enforcement and makes recommendations for change.

Table 4 presents a more detailed summary of the contents of this report.

20


Table 4 Structure of this report

Report summary Key findings and list of recommendations

Part A: Context

Background

Why did the review take place?

What were the terms of reference?

Current system of fare compliance and enforcement

What is the policy and legal framework for ticketing compliance and enforcement?

Which entities are responsible for compliance and enforcement?

What compliance and enforcement measures are in place?

What are the differences between the penalty fare scheme and the infringement system?

Behavioural aspects of fare evasion

How does the psychology of fare evasion impact on policy measures to improve ticketing compliance?

Part B: Areas for improvement

Issues raised by stakeholders

What were the key issues raised by stakeholders during the consultation process?

What findings have been made by other relevant review processes?

Analytical assessment of the issues

What analytical framework can be used to assess the efficiency and fairness of ticketing compliance and enforcement?

What best practice regulatory principles should be taken into account?

What lessons can be learned from other jurisdictions?

How do Victoria’s current compliance and enforcement arrangements perform under the analytical assessment?

Part C:Opportunities for reform Developing a policy framework

What policy framework would support a better balance between efficiency

21


and fairness?

How should the government clarify its policy priorities in relation to public transport ticketing?

Analysis of operational reforms options

What operational reforms are needed to support the proposed policy framework?

In particular, what options are available to reform the current two-tier enforcement approach?

Current system of fare compliance and enforcement Victoria’s ticketing law frameworkThe legal framework governing public transport ticketing in Victoria is illustrated in Figure 3.

The Transport Integration Act 2010 sets out the framework for the provision of an integrated and sustainable transport in Victoria. It contains the overarching objectives for the transport system and key decision-making principles, including in relation to social and economic inclusion, and economic prosperity. Within this broader legislative framework for the state, the key statute that governs ticketing and ticketing offences on Victoria’s public transport network is the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. This Act makes provision for the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006, which require and regulate the use of tickets for Victoria’s public transport system “with the intention of supporting the collection of revenue for that system and reducing fare evasion and the consequential revenue losses incurred by public transport operators and the State”.9

The Regulations detail obligations to hold valid tickets, and to provide appropriate forms of evidence for entitlement when using concession tickets. They also prescribe ticketing offences and penalties, defences to these offences, and enforcement powers in relation to tickets.

The Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 also make provision for the Transport (Infringements) Regulations 2010, which detail infringement penalties for public transport offences including ticketing offences.

Another key instrument in the ticketing framework is the Victorian Fares and Ticketing Manual, made as a statutory condition under the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 198310, which sets out the conditions for using public transport services and specifies the fares payable and the rules for validity for those tickets. The Manual contains detailed information on the different types of tickets, fares, concession arrangements, and how to use and manage myki cards. (The different types of public transport tickets available in Victoria are summarised in Box 4.)

The public transport ticketing infringement system operates under the broader infringement framework established under the Infringements Act 2006.

In the State of Victoria, infringements are used to address the effect of minor law breaking, with minimum recourse to the machinery of the formal criminal justice system. The Infringements Act 2006 provides a common set of laws and processes for issuing infringements and warnings, and enforcing unpaid penalties, and aims to achieve fairness and flexibility by increasing payment options, providing for internal review at agency stage, making payments easier, and including safeguards for persons with special circumstances. Proposed amendments to the Act, which had not passed at the time of the printing of this report, provide vulnerable people with more options to deal with their infringement fines, including the introduction of a work and development permit scheme to provide vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians with non-financial options to expiate infringement debt while addressing offending behaviour through approved activities and treatment.

9 See section 1(a) of Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006.

10 Section 220D of the Act.22


In June 2014, the Fines Reform Act 2014 was passed. Upon commencement, this Act will establish a new fines recovery model for the collection and enforcement of both court fines and infringement fines, with responsibility resting with a new administrative body within the Department of Justice and Regulation, known as Fines Victoria. The default commencement date is 31 December 2017.

Figure 3 Public transport ticketing in Victoria – the legal framework

Box 4 Different types of public transport tickets in Victoria

Tickets include myki cards, V/Line paper tickets and regional bus paper tickets. These are supplemented by a range of concessions (eg, students, seniors, veterans and holders of Health Care Cards), and free travel for eligible users.

Day passes are made available to community service organisations and charities representing disabled or severely disadvantaged people, and can be used in emergencies (eg, when travelling to/from medical appointments, counselling sessions or temporary/crisis accommodation).

Myki cards are used on metropolitan Melbourne’s trains, trams and buses, V/Line commuter train services and buses in major regional centres. myki cards can be used to authorise travel on a pay-as-you-go basis using value stored on the card (known as ‘myki money’) or by pre-purchasing entitlement to a period of travel for a week, or from 28 to 365 days (‘myki pass’). In order to be valid for travel, myki cards have to be validated by ‘touching on’ myki reader machines at train stations, on trams or on buses.

V/Line paper tickets authorise travel on V/Line trains and coaches on a single trip, daily, weekly, monthly or date-to-date (10 to 52 weeks) basis.

Regional bus paper tickets authorise travel on a 2-hour, daily, weekly or monthly basis.

Responsibilities for maximising fare complianceThe governance of fare compliance in Victoria involves a number of different entities, including:

DEDJTR;

Public Transport Victoria (PTV) – which is a statutory authority established under the Transport Integration Act 2010 that acts as a system authority for all public transport and an advocate for public transport users; and

public transport operators, and the Bus Association of Victoria (BusVic).11

The responsibilities of each of these entities is shown in Figure 4.

In addition to their own responsibilities, agreements between the public transport operators and PTV contain a number of contractual obligations relating to the protection of fare revenue. While the conditions vary between operators, the key elements are displayed in the figure.

Figure 4 Governance of fare compliance – responsibilities of different entities

Overview of compliance strategyA number of strategies are currently pursued to promote compliance with the ticketing requirements, including:

ongoing attempts to make the ticketing system easier to use (eg, increasing the number of retail outlets that sell myki cards, improved signage, increasing the number of myki reader machines at stations and on trams; the ability to top-up myki cards online; and automatic top-up arrangements);

marketing and education, including information campaigns designed to encourage and ‘normalise’ fare compliance, and continually educate users on how to use the ticketing system;

ticket barriers at major train stations; and

enforcement activities undertaken by authorised officers.

Authorised officers represent the ‘front line’ of public transport enforcement measures. They are granted powers by the Victorian Government – via an authorisation process undertaken by DEDJTR pursuant to the Transport (Compliance and

11 BusVic is the voluntary professional association for Victoria’s accredited route, school, tour and charter and non-accredited bus and coach operators.

23


Miscellaneous) Act 1983 – and employed by accredited public transport operators to check tickets on trains, trams and buses across Victoria.

Authorised officers may work in uniform or plain clothes, and are identified by carrying a State of Victoria Authorised Officer badge, photo identification, and portable handheld myki ticket readers. They have the authority to inspect tickets and concession entitlements, where appropriate, even when passengers have left the vehicle or the paid area of a station.

If an authorised officer believes an offence has occurred, (eg, a valid ticket and/or appropriate evidence to concession is not held or produced), they can:

offer the passenger the option of paying an ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare of $75; or

make a report to DEDJTR who may issue the passenger with an infringement notice resulting in a fine;

arrest the passenger until the police arrive if the passenger refuses to comply; and

seek surrender of tickets for use as evidence if necessary.

The penalty fare scheme and infringement notice system represent a ‘two tier’ approach to ticketing enforcement system in Victoria. As outlined in the sections below, the two alternative approaches are very different.

‘On-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme

In August 2014, PTV introduced a trial of a penalty fare scheme, which offers an alternative to the report of non-compliance, which is issued under the infringement system that has traditionally been applied to ticketing offences (see section 3.3.2). The legislation to support the penalty fare scheme was passed in late 2013.

The penalty fare is $75 and is paid ‘on the spot’ by EFTPOS or credit card. Passengers’ names and addresses are not taken and, once paid, a penalty fare cannot be reviewed. While no formal refund or appeal provisions apply, PTV will receive complaints about penalty fares and issues may be escalated to the Public Transport Ombudsman. (There appears, however, to be a lack of public awareness about this complaints process).

Penalty fares are only offered for ticketing offences where the passenger:

travels without a valid ticket or fails to produce a valid ticket on request; or

travels on a concession ticket without evidence of concession entitlement (or fails to produce this evidence on request).

A penalty fare is not offered where a passenger is:

committing a behavioural offence (such as smoking or putting feet on seats);

committing multiple offences;

committing a serious fare evasion offence, such as fraud or producing a counterfeit ticket;

travelling on a V/Line service; or

under 18 years old.

Because name and address details do not need to provided, and transactions are card-based, the issuing of penalty fares represents a streamlined process. The short interaction times allows authorised officers to check a greater number of tickets, increasing their visibility on the public transport network.

Public transport infringement systemIn Victoria, infringements are used to address the effect of minor law breaking with minimum recourse to the machinery of the formal criminal justice system. Infringement notices are set out in more than 60 Victorian Acts, including the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. The overarching framework for the process of infringements is set out in the Infringements Act 2006.

Infringement penalties for public transport offences such as ticketing are contained in the Transport (Infringements) Regulations 2010.

24


The public transport infringement system is well-established, and continues to operate in parallel with the penalty fare scheme. It covers both ticketing and behavioural offences on public transport, can be used for multiple offences, and is applicable across the public transport network (including V/Line).

The infringement system process is more complex than the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme, and includes provision for an internal review in cases of appeal against the issuing of an infringement notice.

Figure 5 provides a high level overview of the infringement process, which involves the following key steps:

if an authorised officer believes an offence has been made, a report of non-compliance (RONC) is completed, requiring the name and address details of the passenger;

the RONC is passed to DEDJTR, which may then issue an infringement notice to the passenger, which carries a minimum fine of $223 (or $76 for those aged under 18);12

the infringement notice includes details of how to apply for an internal review where passengers want to appeal against the infringement;

internal reviews are conducted by DEDJTR; and

if appeals are rejected, passengers have the option of escalating the matter to the Magistrates’ Court.

Figure 5 High level overview of the infringement process

Source: Adapted from PTV

Comparison of penalty fares and the ticketing infringement systemThe box below provides a summary of the key components of the two tiers of public transport ticketing enforcement in Victoria.

Box 5 Comparison of the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme and the ticketing infringement system

Penalty Fare Infringement System

Introduced in August 2014 on a trial basis Well-established process, within the general framework of the Infringements Act 2006

$75, paid immediately Minimum $223, payable later* ($76 for those under 18 years old)

Payable by debit/credit card; no cash All payment types accepted

Not available to those aged under 18 years All ages covered

Metropolitan area only Metropolitan and V/Line areas

Does not apply to multiple or behavioural offences+ Used for multiple offences+

Personal details do not have to be provided Must provide and verify name and address

12 Infringement fines are subject to an escalation process, depending on when action is taken to pay them.25


No internal review process, although PTV will receive complaints. Unresolved issues can be escalated to the Public Transport Ombudsman

Can be appealed – internal review by DEDJTR, as required by statute. Matters can be escalated to the Magistrates’ Court

Notes:

* If the infringement fine is not paid by the due date, it is subject to a staged, escalation process.

+ Authorised officers also enforce non-ticketing regulations on public transport, such as smoking, littering, putting feet on seats, and using indecent, obscene, offensive or threatening language.

Behavioural aspects of fare evasion In order to implement effective policies to facilitate ticketing compliance, it is important to understand the key behavioural aspects of fare evasion – what factors cause people to fare evade? Work undertaken on the psychology of fare evasion, and advances in behavioural science more generally, provide valuable insights to inform the development of effective strategies to improve compliance.

Public transport users may not hold a valid ticket for a number of reasons – for example:

users may be unable to find a functional vending machine or retail outlet at which to purchase a ticket;

non-functional myki readers may prevent users from touching on and validating their tickets for travel;

users may have inadvertently not touched on;

crowded trams or train platforms may hinder the ability of users to validate their myki cards in a timely fashion;

there may be confusion about the way that the ticketing system works – for instance:

those holding tickets may not be familiar with the rules regarding validation of tickets (eg, knowing when or how to touch on/off myki cards) – these rules are becoming increasingly complex and vary by mode of transport (see Table 6 in Part B);

the rules for entitlement to concession tickets may be misunderstood, including the appropriate form of identification that is required to be shown to prove entitlement;

users may inadvertently be travelling without their myki card (eg, left it at home);

users travelling on concession tickets may not be carrying the appropriate form of identification to prove entitlement (even though they do qualify for concessionary arrangements);

some users may have special circumstances that prevent them from holding a valid ticket (such as low incomes, homelessness, mental incapacity/disability, or severe addiction problems);

some users may deliberately choose not to hold a valid ticket. This choice may reflect:

a form of ‘protest’ to express dissatisfaction with aspects of the public transport system (eg, quality of service, cost of travel, the ‘fairness’ of the system);

a ‘rational’ financial decision – some users may make an assessment of the likelihood of getting caught without a valid ticket and hence the total fines they are likely to incur over time. If they believe this will be lower than the total costs of purchasing a valid ticket, they may justify fare evading on the basis that they will be financially better off, even though they are breaking the law; and

some users who are just cheating the system because they inherently dishonest. They may consider that it is easy to travel without a valid ticket, and believe that it is a victimless crime (ie, no-one is hurt because of fare evasion).

The majority of examples in the list above represent unintentional or accidental fare evasion. Work on the psychology of fare evasion undertaken by the Institute of Transport Studies at Monash University on behalf of PTV indicates that, while inadvertent fare evaders accounted for almost 15 per cent of the Melbourne population in 2011-12, the fare revenue lost as a result of this group was $4 million, or around 5 per cent of the total revenue lost from fare evasion (see Table 5 on the next page). People in this group tend to evade only once and have very little intention to evade again.

Table 5 Characteristics of fare evaders

26


’meant to pay, accidental, one-off’

Recidivists

Share of Melbourne population 14.9% 1.7%

Estimated fare revenue lost $4.0 million $53.9 million

Share of fare revenue lost 5% 68%

Source: Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University

In contrast, the estimated fare revenue lost as a result of deliberate and repeat fare evasion from recidivists represented approximately $54 million in 2011-12, or over two thirds of the total revenue loss on the public transport system. The number of people in the recidivist group represented just 1.7 per cent of Melbourne’s population.

The single most important finding of the research undertaken by the Institute of Transport Studies is the need to focus enforcement efforts on recidivist, high frequency and deliberate fare evaders. Since they represent a relatively small group, targeting them can be cost effective in terms of both costs and return on lost fare revenue. At the same time, the research indicates that policy needs to be sympathetic to, and assist, inadvertent fare evaders because they represent a considerable proportion of total public transport users, yet are less relevant in terms of revenue loss, and are unlikely to reoffend.

Clearly, measures to address inadvertent fare evasion effectively will be different from initiatives designed to tackle non-compliance by recidivists.

For example, inadvertent fare evasion can be addressed by:

measures to improve understanding of the ticketing system;

improving the functionality of the system, including installing more myki readers; and

increasing the number of vending machines and retail outlets that sell tickets.

Behavioural analysis suggests that strategies that might be effective in improving compliance by recidivists include:

increases in ticket checking rates – particularly at times, locations and on routes where recidivist fare evaders are known to travel;

marketing campaigns that discourage views such as ’easy to travel without a valid ticket’ and that ’no one is hurt because of fare evasion’;

improvements to the ‘image’ of the public transport system – for example, strong perceptions of fairness and consistency in enforcement decision-making are likely to be conducive to higher rates of compliance from those who are ‘protesting’ against what they consider to be ‘unfair’ arrangements.

Meanwhile, the growing prominence of ‘nudge theory’ in public policy development may have relevance to public transport ticketing compliance. Nudge theory is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and economics which argues that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to try to achieve non-forced compliance can influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals, at least as effectively – if not more effectively – than direct instruction, legislation, or enforcement.

This behavioural theory suggests that ticketing compliance could be improved through positive reinforcement of desired behaviours – for example, by introducing a system of rewards for those users with excellent records of compliance.

27


Part B WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED?

Issues raised by stakeholders As detailed in Part A, a targeted consultation process was undertaken as part of the review process, which included engagement with representatives of public transport user groups (including those representing the interests of vulnerable sections of the community); transport operators and the union representing public transport employees; ombudsmen; and the legal system. In addition to face-to-face meetings, some groups provided written submissions to the review.

This section summarises the key issues raised by stakeholders during the consultation process.

In addition to their participation in the review, the Public Transport Ombudsman and Victorian Ombudsman have both conducted investigations or released reports that comment on aspects of ticketing enforcement. The key issues raised in these investigations and reports are also highlighted in this section.

Issues raised during the consultation processesWhile there are inevitably some overlaps, the main issues and suggestions for improvements raised by stakeholders have been summarised under the following main headings:

the efficiency and fairness of the ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme;

the impact of the ticketing enforcement regime on vulnerable groups, including transport users with special circumstances (eg, mental or intellectual disability, homelessness, serious addiction to drugs or alcohol), young people, and those in severe financial difficulty;

concession arrangements;

the processes around the infringement notice system (including internal reviews);

the conduct and training of authorised officers; and

the impact of changes to fare policy and business rules on the level of understanding of, and compliance with, ticketing requirements.

Each of these issues is discussed below. Where relevant to the discussion, quotes and case studies from written submissions are included.

The efficiency and fairness of ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare schemeTransport operators observed that, since its introduction on a trial basis in August 2014, the ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme has streamlined enforcement activity by authorised officers, allowing more tickets to be checked, a key factor in improving the level of fare compliance.

Some stakeholders noted that penalty fare transactions are quicker and easier than the well-established infringement process, and the process can be less stressful and embarrassing for the passenger because no personal details have to be provided.

The Rail, Tram and Bus Union stated that the scheme had resulted in less conflict between authorised officers and passengers compared to the infringement process.

Others felt that removing the need to submit personal details was an important benefit to some international travellers, particularly international students, who may have concerns about having their names and addresses recorded, as they fear it may be a future black mark against their name, which they worry might have implications for visas, residency applications etc.

However, the overwhelming feedback received from stakeholders about the penalty fare scheme focussed on issues surrounding the ‘fairness’ of the arrangements.

Many consider the scheme to be inequitable because the option to accept a penalty fare is limited to those with the ability to pay upfront or who have credit cards. This means that those on low incomes and other vulnerable groups are often unable to access the scheme.28


In a written submission to the review, the Infringements Working Group (of which Justice Connect is a member) argued that the use of the penalty fares has a discriminatory effect:

“on-the-spot penalty fares are out of reach for low income people who would benefit most from paying a reduced amount. The on-the-spot amount is almost 30% of the weekly income for someone on the Newstart Allowance. Even for someone on a slightly higher income, high costs of living, particularly housing costs mean it is unlikely that they will have $75 to spare. In this way, the on-the-spot penalty fare system is discriminatory in its effect because it allows middle and high income earners an easy out, while low income earners – who will be hit hardest by the full penalty amount – have little choice but to accept the full amount.”

Infringements Working Group of the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) and the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, On track to fairer fares and fines – Public transport position paper, 2016, p.30

The Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) conducted a survey which found that 21%of passengers said they did not have the means to pay the on-the-spot penalty fare.13

The consultation process also revealed a wide perception that transport users are confused about the differences between penalty fare scheme and the infringement process, particularly in relation to appeal rights and how to complain.

Some stakeholders complained about the inadequacy of the information conveyed to users about penalty fares. Because of the ‘on-the-spot’ nature of the penalty fare scheme – and the pressure and intimidation felt by some users when intercepted by authorised officers – some felt that many users are unable to make a rational, informed choice about whether to accept a penalty fare, rather than opt to enter the infringement notice process). As a result, it is argued that inadvertent fare evaders may be accepting a penalty fare when their interests may be better served by seeking a review under the infringement system.

In particular, the University of Melbourne’s Student Union Legal Service contended that many students from international backgrounds where English is not their first language do not have sufficient time and ability to understand their options on the spot. They do not understand requests to show a concession card, even though they may be in possession of one. Some international students come from autocratic cultures and have a defensive attitude towards authorities and would rather ‘save face’ and settle the matter expeditiously than appeal the infringement (even where they may have valid grounds for appeal).

In other feedback provided to the review, some stakeholders:

considered the penalty fare of $75 to be too high, describing it more like a ‘pseudo fine’ rather than a penalty ‘fare’;

felt the penalty fare scheme was a revenue-raising initiative rather than a genuine enforcement tool, arguing that not seeking personal details of passengers demonstrated that the authorities were more interested in collecting penalty fare revenue rather identifying recidivist fare evaders; and

argued that the lack of fairness in the penalty fare scheme is encouraging some users to try and cheat the system.

Many of the issues raised by stakeholders during the review process echo observations made by the Public Transport Ombudsman (PTO). In her 2015 Annual Report, the PTO reported:

“The introduction of penalty fares as an enforcement measure from 1 August 2014 resulted in a marked increase in the complexity of matters consumers brought to the PTO.”

Public Transport Ombudsman, Annual Report 2015, p.17

After reporting a 90 per cent increase in approaches about public transport penalties and fines in 2014-15, the PTO made the following observations:

“The PTO’s view is that a revenue protection system should be fair, reasonable and aligned with good industry practice and the principle of access to justice. The PTO has identified a number of issues that it believes impact how fair and reasonable the system is:

Consumers are required to make an on-the-spot decision without necessarily having enough information about their liability and any defences that may be available to them. Some people have said that they found the experience of talking to AOs distressing and a difficult situation in which to make an informed decision.

13 PTUA, Fairer Fines Survey Report and Recommendations to the Review of Public Transport Fare Enforcement, February 2016, p.2.29


Current messaging around the penalty fare system can mislead consumers into believing that have no options if they wish to dispute a penalty fare. Consumers should be advised of their right to complain about penalty fares to PTV and the PTO. The obvious way to ensure this is done consistently is via written material provided to consumers at the same time they accept a penalty fare.

The current transport infringement regime is effectively a two tiered system – advocacy groups complain to us that consumers who do not have the means to pay on the spot are penalised because they cannot choose a $75 penalty fare in preference to an infringement notice of $223.”

Public Transport Ombudsman, Annual Report 2015, p.24

Impact of the enforcement regime on vulnerable groupsIn addition to the inability of many vulnerable people to be able to afford to access the penalty fare scheme, representatives of vulnerable groups have pointed to other aspects of the public transport ticketing enforcement regime that have a disproportionate impact on their clients because they are more likely to get infringements on public transport because of their inability to pay fares, and are less likely to be able to address fines through payment.

As stated by the Infringements Working Group:

“The public transport fare enforcement system has a particularly pronounced effect on the most vulnerable members of the Victorian community who are reliant on public transport to get to services, work and education, and whose use of public transport may be complicated by hardships such as poverty, homelessness, mental illness, substance dependence or family violence.”

Infringements Working Group of the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) and the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, On track to fairer fares and fines – Public transport position paper, 2016, p.6.

Meanwhile, Justice Connect highlighted the impact of public transport fines on vulnerable Victorians, who often cannot afford to pay.

“A fine for not having a ticket on public transport or not having proof of your concession entitlement is $223. That is 85% of the weekly income for a person who relies on the Newstart Allowance. If they were to pay the fine, they would have $39 left for all expenses – food, accommodation, health – for that week.”

Justice Connect Homeless Law, Fair’s Fare: Improving access to public transport for Victorians experiencing homelessness, March 2016, p.4

There are calls for concessionary fines to be available for vulnerable people (as they already are for children under 18 years old). Some stakeholders cited the recommendation of the Sentencing Advisory Council in its May 2014 report, The Imposition and Enforcement of Court Fines and Infringement Penalties in Victoria, that infringement penalty recipients who are experiencing financial hardship should receive a reduced infringement penalty amount of 50 per cent.

Stakeholders also highlighted the difficulties and delays faced by vulnerable persons to extricate themselves from the infringement process. Because they rarely able to afford to pay the upfront penalty fare, they are forced into the infringement system. Because they often accumulate multiple infringements, it can take years to negotiate the system.

The Infringements Working Group submitted that:

“[…] once a person enters the infringement system, it is difficult to exit and the subsequent process generates significant stress and hardship for individuals, and burdens the court system, government agencies and legal and community services.”

Infringements Working Group of the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) and the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, On track to fairer fares and fines – Public transport position paper, 2016, p.11

An indication of the cost of these burdens was provided by Justice Connect Homeless Law which, based on costs and time data available for 11 cases of public transport infringement fines in 2014-15, estimated that they spent an average of 51 hours working in each matter. If such legal costs had been incurred by a commercial law firm, Justice Connect Homeless Law estimates that each case would involve average legal fees of $16,640.

In some cases, the costs can be much higher because of the time taken to resolve cases involving users with special circumstances. In 2013, Homeless Law engaged a consultant to review the resource implications of the infringement

30


system, and found that the average time to resolve an infringements matter was 14 months. In some cases, it can be much longer, as illustrated by Box 6, which provides a case study of a woman experiencing homelessness, who incurred a number of ticketing infringements, which took almost three years to resolve.

Box 6 Case study of a woman experiencing homelessness – 34 months to resolve a public transport fine

Homelessness and public transport

Stephanie is a middle-aged woman with a history of homelessness, who suffers from an acquired brain injury and depression, and whose only income is Newstart Allowance.

Stephanie approached a community legal centre after she had been issued with five infringements from July 2012 to July 2013 for travelling without a valid ticket on public transport.

Stephanie was homeless after having to leave her rental property when her relationship ended. She was paying her ex-partner to be able to sleep on a couch in his office, but could not stay at the office during business hours. The infringements were issued when Stephanie was travelling from the office to either a suburban soup van for dinner (there were no kitchen or bathroom facilities in the office), or to one of her many volunteering commitments.

Application for revocation and supporting evidence

Between September 2013 and February 2014, Stephanie’s lawyers obtained a variety of support letters from treating doctors, support workers and the operator of the soup van. The letters commented on her homelessness and mental health issues.

In February 2014, an application for revocation was submitted on the basis of Stephanie’s homelessness, mental illness and financial hardship. The application was supported by five letters of support and documentation from Centrelink.

In June 2014, the Infringements Court responded to the application, requesting more detailed evidence that clearly identified the link between Stephanie’s homelessness/mental illness and the infringements.

In October 2014, the Infringements Court revoked the enforcement orders on the basis of special circumstances. The matter was referred to the Magistrates’ Court for hearing. In May 2015, the infringements were unconditionally dismissed by the Magistrates’ Court.

34 months passed between the time Stephanie was issued with her first fine in July 2012 and the dismissal of this fine by the Court.

Additional fine

Whilst this process was underway, Stephanie was issued with an additional infringement for travelling without a valid ticket in January 2014. In May 2015, a new application for revocation was submitted. In June 2015, the fine was revoked and ultimately referred to the Magistrates’ Court.

In January 2016, the final infringement was unconditionally dismissed by the Magistrates’ Court, more than 2 years after it was issued. The resolution of Stephanie’s infringement issues required 164 hours of lawyers’ time (with a market value of $58,367).

Source: Justice Connect Homeless Law, Fair’s Fare: Improving access to public transport for Victorians experiencing homelessness, March 2016, p.15

Many other cases studies of this nature were submitted to the review.

Stakeholders pointed out that the overarching framework for infringements in Victoria is designed to protect people with special circumstances, and that the cost of court proceedings to pursue payment of unpaid fines from those with special circumstances and children are high, with a low success rate of recouping the unpaid fines.

As noted in a written submission from Youthlaw, some vulnerable groups need to plead guilty in court to have a fine withdrawn on the basis of special circumstances. This guilty plea can adversely affect future employment opportunities:

“Recognition of special circumstances in the Infringements Act is designed to ensure that certain members of the community are not unfairly caught up in the infringements system by providing a mechanism for acknowledging the impact of mental illness, substance dependence and homelessness on a person’s conduct. The aim of the special circumstances

31


process is to divert from the criminal justice system people who cannot control or understand the nature or consequences of their behaviour.

Ultimately, many young people Youthlaw represent in the Special Circumstances list have their matters withdrawn or dismissed due to their special circumstances. This however is a lengthy and time consuming process that on average can take twelve months and see the Department, the police and the courts expending significant resources processing and prosecuting fines.

The requirement to plead guilty to access the Special Circumstances List means that the most vulnerable people in the infringement system are pleading guilty to fines and are receiving a criminal record where they had no control over the behaviour that resulted in the fine.”

Youthlaw, Submission to Ticketing Compliance and Enforcement Review, February 2016, p.6

Some groups acknowledged that ongoing efforts by the Victorian Government to improve the infringements through the enactment of the Fines Reform Act 2014 and the Fines Reform and Infringements Act Amendment Bill 2016 should have benefits for vulnerable groups. In particular, the introduction of the Work and Development Permit scheme will allow people to address their fines and infringements through unpaid work or participation in a range of activities, such as counselling, education or treatment in drug, alcohol or mental health matters.

Despite these reforms, stakeholders are calling for earlier intervention to prevent highly vulnerable people from entering the infringements system in the first place. Some of the strategies suggested to achieve this aim included:

granting free access to public transport for vulnerable people, which could include an expansion in the Access Travel Pass scheme, which offers free travel to certain users;

better training for authorised officers so that they can recognise genuine cases of people with special circumstances, and apply more discretion and give warnings or referrals to appropriate support services, rather than imposing penalties;

better identification of special circumstances by DEDJTR during the infringement notice process; and

relaxing the evidentiary requirements to trigger special circumstances provisions in the infringements process.

The Infringements Working Group submitted that:

“Authorised Officers are not required to obtain details about or consider whether a person issued with an infringement notice has special circumstances that caused the offending conduct (ie, mental illness, substance dependence or homelessness led to them travelling without a valid ticket or evidence of their concession). The DEDJTR is therefore first likely to learn of relevant special circumstances as part of an internal review process, or when the infringement is returned to the agency after a successful application for revocation to the Infringements Court.

The IWG’s understanding is that, presently, the process of issuing an infringement notice after a receiving a Report of Non-Compliance (RONC) is largely automated, with little room for discretion.

In addition to a more meaningful Access Travel Pass system and better informed and supported decision-making by Authorised Officers, the point at which a RONC is received and assessed by the DEDJTR is another important juncture at which people who should not be caught up in the infringement system can be exited.”

Infringements Working Group of the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) and the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, On track to fairer fares and fines – Public transport position paper, 2016, pp.18-19

Arrangements for the current Access Travel Pass scheme are summarised in Box 7.

Box 7 The Access Travel Pass Scheme

PTV offers the free Access Travel Pass for ‘people with significant permanent physical or mental disability who travel independently on Victoria’s public transport network and can demonstrate that due to their disability they cannot use the myki ticketing systems’. To be eligible for the Access Travel Pass, a person must:

have a significant permanent disability;

be a permanent resident of Victoria;

be able to travel independently on Victoria’s public transport network (without any assistance from a carer or companion); and

32


be unable to touch on or touch off their myki card independently.

The Access Travel Pass entitles the pass holder to: Melbourne metropolitan trains, trams and buses; V/Line services; regional town buses; and regional services that have a contract or service agreement with PTV.

Some stakeholders suggested that Access Travel Passes are under-utilised and not as effective as they could be at preventing highly vulnerable people from entering the infringement system. It has been suggested that this may be attributable to a lack of awareness about the Access Travel Pass amongst agencies working directly with people who would be eligible.

There were also calls for the criteria for access to the Access Travel Pass to be expanded to include people experiencing a mental or intellectual disability, disorder, disease or illness; an addition to drugs, alcohol or a volatile substance; or homelessness.

“Homeless Law notes that Public Transport Victoria already offers free public transport to particular categories of people, including state and federal Members of Parliament, judges and some Public Transport Victoria employees. Homeless Law recommends that this generosity is extended to the most vulnerable Victorians least in a position to afford a public transport fare.”

Source: Justice Connect Homeless Law, Fair’s Fare: Improving access to public transport for Victorians experiencing homelessness, March 2016, p.18

Some stakeholders expressed the view that authorised officers should do more to identify those with special circumstances before issuing them with a report of non-compliance, although others felt that it is unreasonable to expect authorised officers to be able to effectively and consistently recognise special circumstances during the brief interaction times involved. There are calls for more training in this regard, although Metro stated that it already conducts regular briefing sessions with authorised officers about vulnerable groups. For example, it has partnered with Black Dog on the Tracksafe initiative, which provides staff with information and training on how to recognise the signs of people with depression or mental illness, who might be at risk of injuring themselves.

To better recognise the circumstances of suffering homelessness, Homeless Law is working with a number of specialist homelessness and justice agencies to revive and strengthen the Homeless People in Public Places Protocol, which is a high level document that provides a framework and guidance for dealing with people experiencing homelessness. The Protocol aims to support enforcement officers to make decisions other than fining people, including through supporting appropriate interactions with people experiencing homelessness and providing referral pathways to services or supports.

Stakeholders also expressed the view that DEDJTR could be more proactive in identifying those with special circumstances. The Infringements Working Group suggested that the Department adopt the following measures:

“A requirement for the Department to confirm whether a person has an Access Travel Pass; check whether a person has received a number of RONCs or infringements recently or in the past; consider whether the address the person has listed is ‘no fixed address’ or a crisis accommodation provider; and check whether the person is receiving support from disability or mental health support services;

A mechanism of oversight and reporting, which reviews the number and proportion of RONCs and infringements that are subsequently withdrawn or dismissed, including on the basis of special circumstances;

Increasing the scope of the Official Warning in lieu of Infringement Notice policy at RONC review stage;

Introducing a more transparent and rigorous internal review policy. The policy could be based on the City of Melbourne’s Model Operating Policy for Enforcement Agencies; and

Open channels of communication with legal services, financial counsellors and other community services providing advocacy for clients issued with infringements for public transport offences, to provide direct insight into systemic issues that could be addressed.”

Infringements Working Group of the Federation of Community Legal Centres (Victoria) and the Financial and Consumer Rights Council, On track to fairer fares and fines – Public transport position paper, 2016, p.20-21

Representatives of vulnerable groups argued that the evidence needed to satisfy the definition of special circumstances can be overly rigid.

33


The current definition of special circumstances in the Infringements Act 2006 requires that a person’s special circumstances ‘resulted in’ them being unable to understand or control the offending conduct. Stakeholders consider this requirement to be problematic and have argued that it creates the need to establish an artificial nexus between a person’s circumstances and the offending conduct. Rigid evidentiary requirements attesting to this causal link can result in vulnerable people being excluded from a review based on special circumstances. Groups want the definition amended to ‘contributed to’.

Meanwhile, there are concerns that, because some vulnerable people have been isolated and disengaged, obtaining the required evidence to demonstrate special circumstances can be a barrier to successful revocation applications. According to some stakeholders, in many cases, medical professionals have asked for $300 to $600 for a medical report to support a special circumstances application.

Concession arrangementsA number of stakeholders expressed concern during the consultation process that the conditions and application of travel concessions can be confusing. Because of the complexities involved, it has been claimed that retailers sometimes sell the wrong type of concession ticket to users, making them prone to enforcement action.

The PTO reported that a Youth and Industry Roundtable she hosted in November 2015 highlighted that the conditions and application of travel concessions appear to be particularly problematic, leading to many penalty fares being issued to young people.

Stakeholders have observed that a significant proportion of ticketing offences involve the failure of those travelling on a concession ticket to provide entitlement evidence because they have neglected to carry the appropriate form of identification. The PTUA found that 22 per cent of surveyed users who had received a fine had done so for travelling on a concession ticket without evidence of a concession card on their person.14

Some stakeholders felt that greater leniency should be afforded so that concession card holders can present the appropriate evidence of their entitlement to a concessionary fare within a specified timeframe (eg, 28 days), and for this evidence to be provided by post, email or fax.

Alternatively, it was suggested that registered myki card holders should be provided with the option of uploading proof of their concession entitlement to a central database. Authorised officers would be alerted to a concession entitlement by their handheld scanners when checking tickets, and/or DEDJTR staff could be alerted to the entitlement at RONC review stage.

The infringement notice processIn addition to the issues raised about the impact on vulnerable groups, stakeholders raised other general concerns about the processes supporting the infringement notice system. Two key themes that emerged during the consultation process were:

the timeliness of the process; and

the nature of internal reviews when infringement notices are appealed.

Some stakeholders expressed frustration about the lack of timeliness of the infringement process, and suggested it was due to a lack of appropriate resourcing within DEDJTR. In particular, stakeholders pointed to the long delays between when authorised officers issue a register of non-compliance and when DEDJTR sends out an infringement notice. Such delays can have implications where there are disputes about whether a passenger has ‘touched on’ (ie, validated their myki card) because CCTV evidence may no longer be available.

There also appears to be a lack of confidence among stakeholders that individual circumstances are taken into account during the internal review process. Many spoke about the ‘template-like’ letters sent to those seeking an internal review, which has raised doubts whether individual circumstances have been taken into account during the review process.

Some stakeholders are calling for greater transparency about the factors that are taken into account during internal reviews, and for greater benefit of the doubt to be given for claims of inadvertent fare evasion, particularly where a passenger has a strong history of fare compliance.

Representatives from the Magistrates’ Court highlighted the importance of having a well-functioning internal review system to allow for issues to be resolved earlier in the process, and provide an opportunity for special circumstances and mitigating circumstances to be properly considered in cases to avoid a burden being placed on the court system. They



noted that, even if a case gets to the Magistrates’ Court and is resolved on the day with verdict of not guilty, it still consumes a lot of resources to book that court time.

In a written submission to the review, the PTO commented on the marked increase in the number of complaints her office had received about the fairness of the infringement process, noting that going to the Magistrates’ Court to resolve any disputes is out of reach of many. She cited the Productivity Commission’s inquiry report into justice arrangements, which stated that:

“Some individuals are deterred from pursuing action for fear that the process will prove too slow and costly. One third of individuals who chose not to act on a substantial legal problem cited a belief that it would be too costly as a reason for inaction. A similar proportion thought it would take too long.”

Productivity Commission, Access to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry Report No.72, September 2014, p.10

Furthermore, the PTO stated that:

“It would seem that many consumers feel the gap between an internal appeals process and the Infringements Court is inherently deterring; which arguably it is intended to be. However, this reinforces a power based approach to dispute resolution, rather than one which affords procedural fairness.”

Public Transport Ombudsman, A review of penalty fare and infringement complaints to the Public Transport Ombudsman, 12 February 2016, p.1

Based on the experience of completing over 50 investigations into penalty fare cases, the PTO has developed the following principles and criteria that could be useful in the context of conducting internal reviews about infringements:

demonstrate that the passenger’s side of the story has been listened to;

checking that passengers have a positive myki balance (or any top-up receipts);

reviewing the passenger’s travel history (ie, does this show a regular history of compliance?);

checking myki reader machine logs to see if they were functioning at the time of travel;

getting access to CCTV footage in a timely manner.

In addition to the PTO, the Victorian Ombudsman has also taken an active interest in the public transport ticketing enforcement process. In January 2016, the Victorian Ombudsman commenced an ‘own motion’ investigation into public transport fare enforcement measures, with an emphasis on assessing whether enforcement is fair and equitable.

This follows a similar investigation completed by the Victorian Ombudsman in 2010, which identified insufficient training of authorised officers in the use of discretion when issuing infringement notices; inadequate oversight of the authorisation of public transport officers and their subsequent compliance with conditions; and insufficiencies in the internal review of infringements issued and case review outcomes conducted by the then Department of Transport.15

In the case of the latter issue, the Victorian Ombudsman determined that there was:

“at best a cursory assessment of requests for review and the lack of details recorded regarding the decision-making process and reasoning. The lack of detail provided in the department’s review letters tend to give commuters the impression that their individual circumstances have not been considered and may influence the number of matters referred to the Infringement Court.”

Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into the issuing of infringement notices to public transport users and related matters, December 2010, paragraph 20

The conduct and training of authorised officersWhile the terms of reference for the review do not specifically cover the behaviour of authorised officers,16 many stakeholders nevertheless raised issues about authorised officers that are relevant to the review’s consideration of the ticketing enforcement regime. For example, authorised officers play an important role in:

15 Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into the issuing of infringement notices to public transport users and related matters, December 2010.

16 Other processes are in train to address issues raised about the behaviour of authorised officers by the Victorian Ombudsman in the Investigation into an incident of alleged excessive force used by authorised officers, February 2015.

35


exercising discretion in determining whether a passenger has committed an offence; and

providing sufficient information about the enforcement regime, particularly to inform the passenger’s decision between accepting a penalty fare or a report of non-compliance (thereby entering the infringements process).

As stated by the PTO:

“A significant proportion of consumers who complained to us about penalty fares also complained about the authorised officers (AOs) with whom they interacted. The behaviour of AOs was the most significant complaint, but consumers also complained about receiving misleading information and the inconsistent application of AO discretion. Consumers reported feeling ‘intimidated’ and ‘harassed’ by AOs.”

Public Transport Ombudsman, A review of penalty fare and infringement complaints to the Public Transport Ombudsman, 12 February 2016, p.3

Meanwhile, the PTUA submitted that:

“Many survey respondents made complaints and comments regarding the behaviour of Authorised Officers, and their approach to passengers. Many people felt officers were rude and did not give consideration to the circumstances which may have led them not having a valid ticket, and felt intimidated into paying the $75 fine. Additionally, people felt intimidated by the group of officers surrounding them when they were being spoken to. Many felt the experience deterred them from travelling on public transport in the future.”

Public Transport Users Association, Fairer Fines Survey Report and Recommendations to the Review of Public Transport Fare Enforcement, February 2016, p.5

The PTUA’s survey revealed that 32 per cent of those who opted for the penalty fare did so because they felt pressured by the authorised officer. Only 4 per cent of those who accepted the penalty fare felt that the authorised officer had explained the different options clearly.17

Some stakeholders recognised the challenging task of authorised officers, pointing out that the choices that authorised officers currently need to offer and communicate to passengers at the time of interception are complex. It was felt that making the process and options at the point of interception simpler would allow authorised officers to interact more easily and effectively with passengers, and would allow for better customer service.

Others expressed the view that public transport users can feel intimidated by authorised officers, perceptions which are heightened because authorised officers travel in groups and wear ‘military-style’ uniforms. And there appears to be some confusion about the roles, responsibilities and powers of authorised officers.

The training of authorised officers was frequently raised during the consultations. Metro Trains provided details of recently-implemented training initiatives to improve the quality of interactions between authorised officers and passengers, including the ‘It’s not worth it’ campaign, which focuses on the de-escalation of confrontational situations.

Nevertheless, there appears to be a prevailing view that authorised officers should have more training, particularly in customer service, and in identifying and understanding the needs of vulnerable people. The PTO’s November 2015 Youth and Industry Roundtable called for greater recognition about the different ways young people interact with people with authority.

Stakeholders, including the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, also highlighted the need for greater consistency in training, making the observation that there appears to be different rules and expectations for authorised officers, depending on who employs (and trains) them.

Yarra Trams also supported the rollout of more training modules, particularly those designed to assist authorised officers in dealing with difficult interactions (eg, drug-affected transport users). Yarra Trams also suggested other options to improve the safety culture, such as non-threatening uniforms and carrying less bulky equipment.

Impact of changes to fares policy and business rules on the understanding of ticketing requirementsThe final major category of issues raised by stakeholders concerned the impact of changes to fares policy and business rules on the level of understanding of, and compliance with, ticketing requirements.



Many stakeholders contended that confusion about how the ticketing system works is contributing to inadvertent non-compliance. This can be a particular problem for tourists and international students. A number of system issues and business rules were also identified as causing inadvertent fare evasion. Specific issues raised included:

confusion about concession arrangements;

inconsistencies and changes in the rules for touching on and off myki cards;

the impact of negativemyki balances on the validity of tickets;

the time taken for credit added to myki balances to be recognised on the system; and

confusion about the balance on a newly-purchased myki card.

These issues are described in Table 6 on the next page.

In addition, some stakeholders felt there were insufficient opportunities and locations for purchasing or adding value to myki cards, particularly in some suburban areas. This can force some people to walk long distances in order to obtain a valid myki card. Other system issues where stakeholders suggested changes included:

the handheld devices used by authorised officers needed to be upgraded to speed up processing times, and provide more information that would facilitate more discretion in cases of inadvertent fare evasion or special circumstances; and

the introduction of some kind of loyalty scheme being introduced to ‘reward’ good behaviour in terms of ticketing compliance. As well as encouraging compliance, it was felt that this may help to counter some of the bad publicity surrounding the ‘strict’ ticketing enforcement measures, which may be deterring some people from using Victoria’s public transport system, impacting on the patronage of public transport, and on Melbourne’s reputation as a tourist destination.

Table 6 Common sources of confusion about the ticketing system

Concession arrangements

The arrangements around public transport concessions (and demonstrating entitlement to concessionary arrangements) appear to be particularly complex. According to the Victorian Fares and Ticketing Manual 2016, there are 11 different categories of concession, each with its own defined benefits, eligibility criteria, and identification requirements to prove entitlement.

In addition, there are 25 different types of free travel passes currently accepted on the public transport system.

Touch on/touch off rules

When the myki system was first introduced, users were told that touching on and off at the start and end of any journey would ensure they would be charged the cheapest fare. Over the time, the rules for touching on/off have become increasingly complex, and vary by mode of transport – as follows:

Trains – must touch on/off upon entering/leaving a ‘designated area’ (ie, train platform). However, there is no need to touch on/off if users swap trains during part of their journey but do not exit the train station.

Trams – must touch on immediately upon boarding the tram. Users are not required to touch off, but if the customer chooses to touch off, they must not do so before the tram leaves the second-last tram stop in that journey.

In order to avoid paying the higher ‘default’ fare, tram users travelling entirely within zone 2 must touch off upon leaving the tram.

Trams in the free tram zone – travel on metropolitan trams wholly within the free tram zone is free. For journeys on a tram that are wholly within the free tram zone, a ticket is not required and hence no touch on is required. (Indeed, if the myki is touched on within the free tram zone, the user will be charged a zone 1 fare.)

If the journey commences in and extends beyond the free tram zone, the customer must touch on the myki before the tram leaves the last boundary tram stop in that journey.

37


Buses – must touch on immediately after boarding and must touch off the myki before leaving the bus, but not before the bus leaves the second-last bus stop in that journey.

Negative myki balance

The myki card allows user to go into negative balance in order to complete a single modal trip, but myki then becomes invalid if a second trip is taken (even if the second trip takes place within a 2-hour window).

Time taken to top up myki balance

Delays between topping up myki cards online and the value appearing on the card can mean there are insufficient funds at the time of travel.

The time taken to credit a myki balance (’topping-up’) depends on the method of adding value. For example, adding value at a vending machine, staffed train station or retail outlet occurs immediately, while top-ups via BPay can take up to five days to process.

Users are currently advised that online top-up can take up to 24 hours to process – although recent modifications mean that such top-ups can now be processed within 90 minutes.

No travel balance included on a new myki card

The cost of a new full fare myki card is $6. However, this fee does not include any travel entitlement. Value needs to be added to the card before travel can commence. Some myki users think the initial fee includes an entitlement to travel.

(NB. A full fare myki Visitor Value Pack is available, which costs $14 and includes $8 myki money for a day’s travel within zones 1 + 2.)

Analytical assessment of the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime The overarching objective of this review, as stated in the terms of reference, is to strike an appropriate balance between efficiency, fairness and equity. In order to meet this objective, it is useful to understand what is meant by these terms – since they can be amorphous concepts in the context of public policy – to facilitate an analytical assessment of the current arrangements for ticketing compliance and enforcement in Victoria.

In addition to incorporating efficiency, fairness and equity, the analytical framework also considers general best practice regulatory principles, and key characteristics of public transport compliance and enforcement policies in other jurisdictions and in other similar portfolio areas (such as parking and speeding infringements). As illustrated by Figure 6, by assessing Victoria’s current ticketing compliance and enforcement regime against this analytical framework, it is possible to identify areas for improvement and reform.

Figure 6 Analytical assessment of the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime

Key elements of the analytical frameworkThe key elements of the analytical framework that has been developed for this review are:

Is the compliance and enforcement regime efficient?

Is the regime fair and equitable?

What are the characteristics of best practice regulation, particularly in relation to compliance and enforcement?

These elements are discussed below.

38


Efficiency‘Efficiency’ within the context of ticketing compliance and enforcement can be measured in a number of different ways.

While a high rate of fare compliance may indicate an efficient system, consideration needs to be given to the amount of resources used to achieve that level of compliance. Within a regulatory setting, priorities should be established to promote an ‘efficient’ allocation of the available enforcement resources so as to maximise the achieved level of compliance. This means that enforcement efforts should be focused on ‘high risk’ parties (ie, those most likely not to comply with the regulations).

In the public transport sphere, this means targeting users with a poor record of ticketing compliance (ie, deliberate and repeat fare evaders).

Another dimension of regulatory efficiency is that the costs incurred in undertaking compliance and enforcement should be proportionate to the costs imposed by non-compliance of the regulation. For example, any additional costs devoted to compliance and enforcement activities should not exceed the ‘gain’ in fare revenue from the reduced fare evasion that results from that extra activity.

A third aspect of efficiency relates to the need to resort to the court system as part of the enforcement regime. Victoria’s ticketing enforcement regime sits under an overarching system of infringements, set out in the Infringements Act 2006, which is designed to deal with minor offences without the need to proceed to court hearings (which can be costly and resource-intensive). An efficient enforcement regime would therefore minimise the number of court proceedings arising from ticketing infringements.

Finally, any form of regulation cannot be considered to be efficient if it is difficult to understand.18

Fairness and equityThe perception of fairness and equity is crucial to the credibility of compliance and enforcement approaches. People who consider the arrangements to be unfair may be more reluctant to comply, leading to non-compliance as a form of ‘protest’. Alternatively, they may be more inclined to take their chances in court, adding to the costs of the enforcement system.

Some of the key aspects of fairness and equity that are relevant in the context of public transport ticketing are articulated in the following legislation and guidelines:

the objectives and decision-making principles contained in the Transport Integration Act 2010;

principles that apply to Victoria’s broader system of infringements, as contained in the Infringements Act 2006, and the Attorney-General’s Guidelines to this Act;19 and

the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

For example, the principle of equity represents one of the decision-making principles of the Transport Integration Act 2010,20 and requires that people should not be disadvantaged on the basis of personal attributes including their financial situation and ability to pay, or on the basis of their location (eg, urban versus regional areas).

Meanwhile, the Infringements Act 2006 recognises that some people may not be able to control or understand their offending conduct because of their ‘special circumstances’, such as mental or intellectual disabilities, serious addition to certain substances, and homelessness. As stated in the Attorney-General’s Guidelines to this Act:

“The recognition of ‘Special Circumstances’ in the Infringements Act 2006 is to ensure that certain members of the community are not unfairly caught up in the infringement system, through providing flexibility in the system so that the special circumstances of individuals can be considered.

In recognising these circumstances, agencies are reminded that the Act seeks to divert from the criminal justice system those who do not have the ability to understand the consequences of their actions, or by virtue of their circumstances or disability are unlikely to be able to avoid the commission of the offence. This aim should be specifically considered by agencies when applications involving special circumstances are being considered by review officers.”

18 Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian Guide to Regulation, December 2014, p.44.

19 Department of Justice, Attorney-General’s Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006.

20 See section 17 of the Transport Integration Act 2010.39


Department of Justice, Attorney-General’s Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006, p.7

The need to take individual circumstances into account is consistent with the administrative law principle that mitigates against inflexible application of policy. It is permissible for administrative bodies and decision makers to develop policies on how they will exercise discretionary powers in particular cases, but they cannot do so in a way that applies the policy without regard or apparent regard for the merits of the applicant’s case. This means that policies can be developed in respect of ticketing and enforcement matters, but these policies cannot be administered in a way that closes off consideration of particular individual circumstances.

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities also contains elements that are relevant to the ‘fairness’ of ticketing enforcement. For example, the charter provides for rights to:

recognition and equality before the law;21

protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment – this includes protection from treatment that humiliates a person;22 and

a fair hearing.23

Consistency and predictability of approach represent another form of fairness. These attributes mean that those in the same circumstances are treated in the same way under the enforcement regime, and there is certainty in the approaches taken.

Best practice regulatory principlesThe analytical framework also incorporates consideration of best practice general regulatory principles, where they are relevant to the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime.

With regulatory reform a key priority for governments, there is a growing literature about best practice regulatory principles. For example, the Victorian Guide to Regulation, which is the whole-of-government definitive guide to the development of regulation in Victoria, articulates a number of key characteristics of good regulatory systems.24 Of these characteristics, the following are particularly important in the assessment of the effectiveness of Victoria’s ticketing compliance and enforcement approach:

Transparency: The development and enforcement of government regulation should be transparent to the community and the business sector. Transparency can promote learning and information sharing within the regulatory system to improve the design, administration and enforcement of regulation, and can also help to build public trust in the quality of regulation and the integrity of the process. Within the context of public transport ticketing, this principle means that the rules for ticketing compliance should be clear to users, as should the processes surrounding the enforcement of these requirements. Ticketing compliance should be promoted through the provision of public information.

Subject to appeal: There should be transparent and robust mechanisms to appeal against decisions made by a regulatory body that may have significant impacts on individuals. This characteristic is also picked up as part of fairness considerations – ie, the right to a fair hearing.

In addition to these characteristics, the analytical framework also draws on best practice principles developed by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for improving regulatory enforcement and inspections.25 Although the OECD principles have been formulated for the purposes of the regulation of entities rather than individuals, the following principles have relevance in the context of public transport ticketing enforcement:

Evidence-based enforcement: deciding what to inspect, and how, should be based on data and experience;

Risk focus and proportionality: the frequency of inspections, and the resources employed, should be proportional to the level of risk, and enforcement actions should be aimed at reducing actual risk caused by infractions;

21 Section 8 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

22 Ibid, section 18.

23 Ibid, section 24.

24 Department of Treasury and Finance, Victorian Guide to Regulation – Toolkit 1: Purposes and types of regulation, updated July 2014.

25 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Regulatory Enforcement and Inspections: OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy,May 2014.

40


Long-term vision: governments should adopt policies and institutional mechanisms on regulatory enforcement and inspections with clear objectives and a long-term road map;

Coordination and consolidation: less duplication and overlaps will ensure better use of public resources, minimise the burden on regulated subjects and maximise effectiveness;

Transparent governance: governance structures and human resources policies for regulatory enforcement should support transparency, professionalism and results-oriented management. The execution of regulatory enforcement should be independent from political influence, and compliance promotion efforts should be rewarded;

Information integration: information and communications technology (ICT) should be used to maximise risk focus, coordination and information sharing;

Clear and fair process: governments should ensure clarity of rules and process for enforcement and inspections: coherent legislation to organise inspections and enforcement needs to be adopted and clearly articulate the rights and obligations of officials and businesses;

Compliance promotion: transparency and compliance should be promoted through the use of appropriate instruments, such as guidance, toolkits and checklists;

Professionalism: inspectors should be trained and managed to ensure professionalism, integrity, consistency and transparency – training should include official guidelines for inspectors to help ensure consistency and fairness.

Features of other systemsTo identify key characteristics of other similar approaches – and to draw on any lessons learnt – the review team has undertaken research into public transport compliance and enforcement arrangements in other jurisdictions (in Australia and overseas), and in other portfolio areas (such as parking and speeding infringements). This research is detailed in Appendix A of this report.

The key findings from this research, which are taken into account in the analytical assessment, are:

The public transport ticketing compliance regimes of other jurisdictions are based on a single-tier enforcement system, with the use of official warnings under some circumstances in lieu of a financial penalty;

Where ‘on-the-spot’ fines are imposed in other jurisdictions and portfolio areas, it is common for partial upfront payments to be accepted, with the ability to pay the balance within a specified timeframe. All other systems examined have well-defined appeal rights and processes;

The minimum fine for a public transport ticketing infringement is broadly similar within most jurisdiction within Australia, ranging from $200 to $235 (Western Australia is an outlier with a fine of $100);

The use of smartphone technology by enforcement in jurisdictions such as NSW has resulted in improved transaction times;

The processes for speeding and parking infringements within Victoria include public guidelines that detail the circumstances under which a review of an infringement notice may be undertaken. In the case of speeding infringements, information is also provided about the factors taken into account when considering whether to replace an infringement notice with an official warning in the cases of minor offences (These factors include a good driving record and the absence of any other speeding or safety-related infringements in the previous two years).

Assessment of the current regime against the analytical frameworkHaving established the analytical framework, this section presents an evaluation of how the current arrangements for ticketing compliance and enforcement in Victoria measure up against the key elements of the framework.

This evaluation is based on a desktop review and on the feedback and evidence provided by stakeholders during the consultation process. Particular attention has been paid to an assessment of the penalty fare scheme as it has been a key focus of the review.

The results of the evaluation are presented in two stages:

the first stage assesses current arrangements in terms of their efficiency and fairness/equity; while

the alignment of Victoria’s ticketing compliance and enforcement regime with best practice regulatory techniques and other similar systems is examined in the second stage.

41


Results of assessment: efficiency and fairness/equity

Efficiency

Because it is a streamlined process (eg, no personal details have to be provided and transactions are card-based), the penalty fare scheme speeds up the interactions of authorised officers, allowing for more tickets to be checked. This effectively increases the level of enforcement activity. This, combined with presence of more multi-modal authorised officers on the public transport network, is a contributing factor to higher ticketing compliance rates. Indeed, as detailed in Part A, the current arrangements have resulted in record high levels of fare compliance. This, in turn, helps to boost fare revenue, which contributes to the funding of the public transport network.

Current enforcement activity does not appear to be targeted towards ‘high risk’ fare evaders – ie, repeat offenders. In fact, the anonymous nature of the penalty fare scheme means that it is not possible to identify recidivist fare evaders. It could be argued that the penalty fare scheme encourages fare evasion by deliberate evaders.

Fare evaders can accrue multiple $75 penalty fares. By offering a lower alternative to the $223 infringement fine, the penalty fare improves the economic rationale for fare evading for those ‘gaming’ the system.

Large numbers of infringement cases are proceeding to court with close to 5,000 ticketing matters prosecuted in 2014-15 (around 3 per cent of total infringements issued). In particular, infringements involving persons with special circumstances are ending up in the court system, with little prospect of recouping unpaid fines. This suggests a lack of efficiency in terms of keeping minor offences away from the criminal justice system, which is one of the main aims of the overarching infringements framework.

The increasing complexity of current ticketing arrangements (including concessionary fares), as highlighted by stakeholders during the review’s consultation process, suggests a lack of efficiency in terms of the ability of transport users to understand their obligations.

Fairness and equity

There are a number of aspects of the current ticketing enforcement regime that appear to be inconsistent with objectives of fairness. The main ones are summarised below:

The two-tier enforcement system appears to be inequitable. Low income groups are less likely to be able to pay an upfront $75 penalty fare than those on higher incomes, nor are they likely to have access to credit/debit cards which are necessary to access the penalty fare option. Instead of accepting the $75 penalty, the only route open to them is the infringement system, with the much higher minimum fine of $223. This leads to a situation where those with less capacity to pay incur a greater penalty than those on higher incomes for committing the same offence;

Furthermore, low income and vulnerable groups may not tend to have the time, resources and cognitive abilities to appeal an infringement notice;

Because penalty fares are not offered on V/Line services, the enforcement system appears to appear to discriminate against transport users in regional areas (which is inconsistent with the principle of equity as it relates to location, as articulated in section 17 of the Transport Integration Act 2010). Those caught fare evading in regional areas do not have access to the same $75 penalty option as those travelling on the metropolitan public transport network;

It could be argued that, because the penalty fare scheme has an eligibility criterion (ie, the ability to pay by debit or credit card), it does not satisfy section 8 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which provides the right to recognition and equality;

Evidence provided by representatives of those with special circumstances suggests that many vulnerable people are getting ‘trapped’ in the infringement system, and not given the appropriate recognition that they are entitled to under the Infringements Act 2006;

While the well-established infringement system appears to adhere to the principle of procedural fairness through the internal review process, the penalty fare scheme’s procedural fairness is more questionable given the lack of formal appeal rights (ie, there is only an ability to complain to PTV or the Public Transport Ombudsman).

42


Results of assessment: alignment with best practice regulatory techniques and other similar systemsTable 6 assesses the current ticketing compliance and enforcement arrangements in Victoria against the regulatory characteristics and principles outlined in section previously.

Meanwhile, the research into approaches used elsewhere highlights a number of issues of particular interest to this review – including:

Victoria is highly unusual in having a two-tier enforcement approach (ie, a choice between a penalty fare or entering an infringement process);

the use of new technology can streamline enforcement activity; and

there are several examples from other jurisdictions and portfolio areas where public guidelines are issued about when discretion may be exercised in enforcement activity (eg, in the form of an official warning, and/or what factors are taken into account in appeals against enforcement decisions).

Table 7 Assessment of how Victoria’s public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement regime adheres to best practice characteristics and principles

Characteristic/principle

Assessment

Transparency There appears to be a lack of transparency in many aspects of the compliance and enforcement arrangements. For example:

The difference between the penalty fare and infringement notice is not well-understood. While authorised officers are required to carry information about the two approaches, passengers may feel under pressure to make a choice ‘on the spot’ and may not make the best decision to suit their circumstances.

There is a lack of information from the authorised officers and little public awareness about penalty fare complaints procedures.

Rules for myki ‘touching on/off’ and negative balance provisions are becoming increasingly complex and/or difficult for many users to understand – particularly tourists and international students. The introduction of the free tram zone and changes to zone 1+2 fare structures have added to the complexity.

There is a lot of confusion about concession arrangements, including in relation to appropriate forms of identification of entitlement.

Subject to appeal While the right to an internal review is available once an infringement notice is issued, similar appeal rights are not available under the penalty fare scheme.

Evidence-based enforcement

Data on where and when fare evasion takes place can be used to target the activities of authorised officers. While the well-established infringements system allows the collection of such data, the penalty fare scheme does not provide similar information to guide enforcement efforts.

Risk focus and proportionality

Within the context of public transport ticketing, this principle implies that enforcement efforts should be targeted on those offenders who are intentionally fare evadingon a regular basis. Evidence gathered from stakeholders suggest that this may not be the case, with inadvertent fare evaders, some from vulnerable groups, getting caught up in the enforcement regime. Moreover, the anonymous nature of the penalty fare scheme means that recidivist fare evaders do not get identified (and pay a lower penalty than would apply under the infringement system).

43


Characteristic/principle

Assessment

Long-term vision There is currently no overarching policy statement that clearly articulates the government’s priorities in relation to ticketing compliance. The main legislative objective in relation to ticketing contained in the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006 focuses on the collection of fare revenue for Victoria’s public transport system without any direct reference to issues of fairness and equity in the pursuit of fare collection.

Coordination and consolidation

Arguably, the current two tier approach (with PTV responsible for the penalty fare scheme, and DEDJTR managing the infringement system) violates this principle. The plan to centralise the electronic processing of all types of infringement notices within Fines Victoria should result in greater efficiencies.

Information integration

The handheld devices currently used by authorised officers have limited capabilities. Experience from other jurisdictions (such as NSW) suggests that there may be room for improvement in the way that ICT can be used in ticketing enforcement – for example, smartphones could potentially be used to access more real time information.

Clear and fair enforcement process

There are various sources of information about the rules and processes for ticketing enforcement – feedback from stakeholders suggests that this information is not always well understood or presented in a fashion that allows passengers to make an informed decision (eg, in the choice between a penalty fare or entering the infringement system). There has also been criticism about the lack of transparency about what is taken into account in internal reviews of infringement notices, although too much transparency may not be a good thing because it could result in increased ‘gaming’ of the system.

Compliance promotion

While there appears to be plenty of guidance material available, its usefulness may be undermined by some of the complexities of the myki system (eg, different rules about touching on/off, negative balance rules, etc – see Table 6).

Professionalism Following investigations into the conduct of authorised officers, the Victorian Ombudsman has made recommendations about training requirements. Stakeholders have also raised issues about the consistency of training and the exercise of discretion by authorised officers.

Conclusion: identifying opportunities for improvement and reformThe assessment of the current arrangements against the analytical framework has identified a number of deficiencies, weaknesses and inconsistencies, which allows identification of areas to improve the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime, and highlights the key priorities for reform.

The primary conclusions from the analytical assessment are as follows:

While the introduction of the penalty fare scheme has streamlined enforcement activities, which has contributed to record high compliance rates, it has also undermined the fairness of the enforcement regime. The scheme is not equitable because it may not be accessed by those on low incomes or those travelling on regional services. Moreover, there are no formal rights of appeal under the penalty fare scheme – only the ability to complain to PTV or the Public Transport Ombudsman (which is not well publicised). This seems contrary to general principles of procedural fairness.

The current enforcement regime is not targeted towards ‘high risk’ fare evaders – ie, those who deliberately and repeatedly cheat the system. If anything, the introduction of the penalty fare scheme has benefitted recidivist fare

44


evaders because they can remain anonymous, and they can pay a ‘discount’ $75 rather than the alternative infringement fine of $223. This effectively increases the ‘attractiveness’ of fare evasion to this group of users.

Some of those not complying with ticketing requirements do so inadvertently, because of myki system issues and/or because of the increasingly complex nature of ticketing arrangements (including the appropriate forms of identification to be produced to prove entitlement to a concessionary fare). These transport users are nevertheless getting caught up in the enforcement system.

Large numbers of people with special circumstances are not being identified early enough in the infringement process, with many cases ending up in the court system, despite the intention of the legislation to divert this cohort away from the criminal justice system.

There seems to be room for greater transparency about Victoria’s enforcement regime – for example, in relation to the factors that may be taken into account when internal reviews of infringement notices are undertaken.

Having identified the key areas for improvement, Part C of this report focuses on opportunities for reform.

Part C opportunities for reform

Developing a fairer policy frameworkthe need for a policy frameworkThe overarching objective of this review is to strike an appropriate balance between efficiency and fairness in the compliance and enforcement of public transport ticketing, and one of the initial areas of focus of the review has been to establish a policy framework to meet this overarching goal.

As discussed in Part A, there are various pieces of legislation that are relevant to public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement. However, there is currently no single document or statement that articulates the government’s priorities, particularly in terms of balancing efficiency and fairness objectives.

The only direct legislative objective in relation to ticketing is contained in the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006, which has a clear focus on the collection of fare revenue to support the public transport system, without any specific reference to issues of fairness in the pursuit of fare recovery. The regulations:

“require and regulate the use of tickets for Victoria’s public transport system with the intention of supporting the collection of revenue for that system and reducing fare evasion and the consequential revenue losses incurred by public transport operators and the State.”

Regulation 1(a) of Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006

However, goals around fairness, equity and social considerations are contained in ‘umbrella’ legislation that is relevant to ticketing compliance and enforcement, such as the Transport Integration Act 2010 and the Infringements Act 2006.

The Transport Integration Act 2010 sets out overarching objectives and decision-making principles that sit above all transport laws, policies and decision-making bodies. This Act:

includes equity as a decision-making principles in the Act, and seeks to ensure fairness regardless of personal attributes, such as physical ability, financial situation and location; 26

requires that the transport system should provide “tailored infrastructure, services and support for persons who find it difficult to use the transport system”.27 This arguably covers enforcement action towards some users with special circumstances;

26 See section 17 of the Transport Integration Act 2010.

27 Ibid, section 8(b). 45


contains the principle of the transport system user perspective, which includes understanding the requirements of transport system users, including their information needs.28 This principle is relevant to the public transport ticketing compliance strategy.

Meanwhile, the framework established by the Infringements Act 2006 also includes elements of fairness for example, through provisions for persons with special circumstances, and procedural fairness through the requirement for an internal review process.

While the existing legislation framework appears to accommodate the pursuit of both efficiency (in terms of fare revenue protection) and fairness/equity objectives, there is merit in developing a clear statement of the government’s policy priorities as far as ticketing compliance and enforcement are concerned to guide the appropriate balance between the different objectives. Such a statement would improve certainty and the consistency of decisions made at the administrative level about the level of discretion that should be exercised in dealing with cases of non-compliance. This should contribute to improved perceptions of fairness about the enforcement system.

What should the policy framework aim to achieve?This review has identified a number of issues and considerations that are relevant to the development of a policy framework surrounding ticketing compliance and enforcement. In particular:

Research on the psychology of fare evasion has concluded that ticketing enforcement regimes should be targeted towards ‘high risk’ fare evaders – ie, those who deliberately and repeatedly cheat the system and account for a high proportion of the total fare revenue lost through fare evasion. This work also suggests that more leniency should be shown towards accidental, inadvertent non-compliance, which tends to be one-off in nature (and only results in modest losses in fare revenue). Such an enforcement regime would also be consistent with regulatory best practice, which dictates that enforcement effort should be proportional to the seriousness of the violation.

Many non-compliers are getting caught up in the enforcement system inadvertently because of their lack of understanding of ticketing arrangements.

There are widespread concerns about the number of persons with special circumstances who become ‘trapped’ in the infringement system, often ending up in the criminal justice system.

There is lack of confidence that individual circumstances are appropriately considered at all times during the internal review process. In part, this reflects the absence of clear information about the factors that are taken into account during these appeals.

While the introduction of the penalty fare scheme has streamlined enforcement activities – allowing authorised officers to check more tickets, it has also undermined the fairness and equity of the enforcement regime. For example, the lack of formal appeal rights under the scheme appears contrary to principles of procedural fairness, and the scheme cannot be accessed by those that do not have the ability to pay ‘on-the-spot’ (eg, because of low incomes). Furthermore, the anonymous nature of the penalty fare scheme prevents identification of recidivist offenders, which is the very group that should be targeted under a best practice enforcement regime.

As envisaged in the objectives of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006, the collection of fare revenue remains paramount to the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime. For every dollar lost to fare evasion, the size of the taxpayer-funded subsidy needed to support the annual operating cost of the public transport system increases.

While protecting fare revenue should remain the primary aim of ticketing policy, this review has identified the following features that could be incorporated in the policy framework to ensure a better balance between efficiency and fairness in ticketing compliance and enforcement:

Focusing enforcement activity towards the greater targeting of deliberate and recidivist fare evaders, with more embedded and systematic discretion to exercise leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fines) in certain cases of inadvertent non-compliance (eg, only issued to those with good myki balances, strong records of compliance, and/or special or exceptional circumstances.29

Facilitating the exercise of more discretion at the ‘front end’ of the process (ie, by the DEDJTR issuing officer) to reduce the number of people that are unjustifiably caught up in the infringement system, including those persons with special circumstances.

28 Ibid, section 18(a).

29 Note: a system of official warnings is already in place and has been increasingly utilised by DEDJTR in recent months. This process would become more embedded and systematic under the proposed approach.

46


Recognising the need to make it easier for transport users to comply with ticketing regulations – this may be achieved by promoting measures to facilitate compliance, such as better customer information to improve understanding of the ticketing system, and modifications to the myki system to help mitigate inadvertent non-compliance.

A number of changes to operational arrangements are needed to support a move towards this ‘fairer’, policy framework, including:

changes to the existing two-tier enforcement approach (which comprises the penalty fare scheme and the well-established infringement process);

modifications to myki arrangements to make the ticketing system easier to use and understand, and other system improvements;

changes to the administration of the infringements system (including earlier identification of those persons with special circumstances); and

measures to improvetraining and support for authorised officers.

These operational measures are examined in Chapter 8.

Towards greater transparency In moving to a fairer compliance and enforcement system, it is recommended that the government provides greater transparency about how it intends to balance efficiency and fairness objectives. As outlined in Chapter 6, such transparency would be consistent with general best practice regulatory principles.

While the remaking of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006 represents one opportunity to do this, a more expeditious and accessible approach would be to prepare and publish a public statement detailing the government’s compliance and enforcement strategy for public transport ticketing.

Such public statements are used by other Victorian bodies with enforcement powers, including WorkSafe, the Environment Protection Authority, Transport Safety Victoria, and the Taxi Services Commission. Meanwhile, authorities in some other jurisdictions publish details of their public transport ticketing enforcement strategies, with the NSW Office of State Revenue30

and Transport for London31 releasing particularly comprehensive documents.

The information in this statement could build on the information that is currently included in PTV’s annual Network Revenue Protection Plans. The statement could be made available on the websites of PTV and DEDJTR, and sent to all those who are issued with an infringement notice.

In line with other published compliance and enforcement strategies in other portfolio areas, it is proposed that the statement should include details of:

the various pieces of legislation, associated regulations, conditions, and other requirements that are relevant to the compliance and enforcement of public transport ticketing in Victoria





the internal review process.

A common feature of statements of compliance and enforcement strategies in other sectors is the use of a ‘pyramid’ to illustrate the main focus on facilitating compliance, with forms of sanctions for non-compliance that escalate in severity as part of enforcement activities.

In the case of the proposed framework for ticketing, such a pyramid would look like Figure 7.

30 NSW Office of State Revenue, State Debt Recovery – Review Guidelines, February 2016.

31 Transport for London, Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy, March 2016.47


Typical best practice principles that are relevant within the context of the Victorian Government’s public transport ticketing enforcement, and which could be articulated in the statement, include that the enforcement strategy is:

targeted – enforcement efforts are targeted towards deliberate and recidivist fare evaders;

proportionate – enforcement activity is proportionate to the seriousness of the non-compliance;

consistent – a consistent approach is undertaken in similar situations/circumstances to achieve consistent outcomes; and

fair and reasonable – the government seeks to strike a balance between assisting compliance and undertaking enforcement action. It may be appropriate to exercise leniency in some circumstances of non-compliance.

In providing details about the internal review process under the infringements system, the statement could include the factors that may be taken account when reviews are undertaken. However, it is recognised that full transparency may not be appropriate because it could lead to ‘gaming’ and abuse of the internal review process.

In order to achieve the appropriate degree of transparency, it is insightful to look at guidelines published by public transport enforcement authorities in other jurisdictions.

In New South Wales, for example, review guidelines released by the NSW Office of State Revenue list the circumstances that are taken into account when reviewing public transport offences, and outline the evidence that needs to be provided in support of a review. Among the circumstances that may be taken into account during a review are:

inability to purchase a ticket because the ticket selling window was closed, and no other alternate ticket vending machine was reasonably available;

inability to purchase or process a ticket because of faulty equipment; and

history of compliance – ie, a demonstrated good record of regularly paying fares on public transport, without a fine or caution in the last three years.

The statement could also include details of the evidence required to support the grounds of special circumstances under the internal review process. Such information is already included in guidelines established by the City of Melbourne and could be adopted by DEDJTR as part of the approach for dealing with review applications based on special circumstances.

Figure 7 The proposed compliance and enforcement ‘pyramid’ for public transport ticketing

Box 8 Recommendations – policy

It is recommended that:

1. While protecting fare revenue should remain the primary aim of ticketing policy, the Government should adopt a policy framework that ensures a better balance between efficiency and fairness in ticketing compliance and enforcement by:

focusing enforcement activity towards the greater targeting of deliberate and recidivist fare evaders, with more embedded and systematic discretion to exercise leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fines) in cases of inadvertent non-compliance;

facilitating the exercise of more discretion at the ‘front end’ of the process (ie, by the DEDJTR issuing officer) to reduce the number of people that are unjustifiably caught up in the infringement system;

recognising the need to make it easier for transport users to comply with ticketing regulations – for example, by promoting measures to facilitate compliance, such as better customer information to improve understanding of the ticketing system, and modifications to the myki system to mitigate inadvertent non-compliance.

2. A public statement be released articulating the government’s public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement strategy, which should include details about:

the various pieces of legislation associated regulations, conditions, and other requirements that are relevant to the compliance and enforcement of public transport ticketing in Victoria


measures to facilitate compliance with ticketing regulations;48




the internal review process, including the factors that may be taken into account when deciding whether to exercise discretion.

Operational reforms To support the policy framework proposed, a number of changes to operational arrangements will be required. These changes are discussed in this section under the following four headings:

options to change the two-tier enforcement approach – which currently comprises the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme and the well-established ticketing infringement system;

ticketing and other system improvements – which have been identified to improve compliance with ticketing requirements;

modifications to the infringement system, including the way that the system deals with people with special circumstances; and

measures to improve training and support for authorised officers.

The review’s recommendations in each of these areas are summarised in text boxes at the end of the relevant sections.

Changes to the two-tier enforcement approachThe on-the-spot penalty fare scheme – including its interaction with the well-established infringement system to effectively create a two-tier enforcement approach – has been a key area of focus for this review.

By streamlining the operations of authorised officers, the penalty fare scheme has allowed more tickets to be checked, which has arguably been a factor behind fare compliance rates reaching record levels in recent years. However, feedback from many stakeholders and an examination of the penalty fare scheme against the review’s analytical framework has raised a number of concerns about the fairness of the scheme – particularly in terms of equity (ie, not everyone can access the $75 penalty fare) and procedural fairness (ie, there is no right to an internal review, and the complaints procedure is not well known). Meanwhile, despite the provision of information by authorised officers, many public transport users report they do not feel confident they can make an informed choice on the spot about the alternative approaches under the two-tier enforcement regime.

To address the problems that have been identified, the review has compared the existing arrangements with the following four options for change:

Option 1 – ‘Fairer’ penalty fares: maintaining the current two-tier arrangements, but making the penalty fare ‘fairer’ by allowing it to be paid on the spot or within 28 days, and publicising the ability to make a complaint to PTV or the Public Transport Ombudsman.

Option 2 – Return to the old system: removing the penalty fare scheme and returning to the single tier, well-established infringement system (ie, minimum infringement fine of $223, with the right to appeal through the internal review process).

Option 3 – New system, low fine: removing the penalty fare scheme, issuing warning letters for non-compliance under specific conditions where reasonable steps have been taken, $75 minimum infringement fine, with the right to appeal through the internal review process.32

Option 4 – New system, compliance-based: removing the penalty fare scheme, issuing warning letters for non-compliance under specific conditions (see below), $223 minimum fine, with the right to appeal through the internal review process. Such an approach is consistent with models adopted in other jurisdictions.

After examining the strengths and weaknesses, the review considers that implementation of option 4 is the best approach to achieve the objectives of the proposed policy framework, which is designed to provide a better balance between efficiency and fairness.

32 Note: a system of official warnings is already in place, and has been increasingly used by DEDJTR in recent months. This process would become more embedded and systematic under this option.

49


In particular, this option will:

remove the inequities of the current penalty fare scheme;

result in a single tier infringement system, which should be less complex to administer and less confusing for public transport users;

allow for improved procedural fairness through the internal review process, which would be available to all offenders;

be fairer to those who are inadvertently non-compliant with ticketing requirements, through the embedded and systematic use of discretion to exercise leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fine) under specific conditions (eg, only issued to those with good myki balances, strong records of compliance, and/or those with special or exceptional circumstances); and

provide a stronger deterrent to deliberate fare evaders by removing the ability to remain anonymous and removing access to a ‘discounted’ penalty fare.

The implementation of option 4 is also consistent with a best practice, risk-based enforcement strategy – and with the main findings of the work on psychology of fare evasion – which suggest that enforcement activity should be targeted towards recidivist offenders. This model also shares some key characteristics of approaches adopted in other jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and London.

By facilitating the identification of repeat offenders, the proposed approach will allow the infringement system to focus on inadvertent fare evaders rather than unintentional fare evaders (who will largely be dealt with through the warning letter process).

Box 9 Recommendation – operational approach to enforcement


3. The existing two-tier enforcement approach be replaced by a new single-tier compliance-based system, based on a similar model adopted in other jurisdictions. Implementing this new model will involve:

removing the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme;

embedding the systematic use of official warning letters for non-compliance, under specific conditions; and

retaining the existing and well-established infringement system, with a minimum $223 fine and the right to appeal through the internal review process.

Ticketing and other system improvementsMaking the ticketing system easy to use and understand is critical to achieving high rates of ticketing compliance, as is the implementation of measures designed to promote desired behaviours by transport users.

The review has identified a number of issues with the myki system that represent common sources of confusion among public transport users, and which may contribute to inadvertent non-compliance. These include the rules regarding touching on and off, which have become increasingly complex following the introduction of the free tram zone in Melbourne’s CBD and recent changes to zone 1+2 arrangements (see Table 6 on page 58). Efforts to improve awareness of the rules, along with the roll-out of more ‘next generation’ myki devices (which give a clearer indication of whether a myki card has been touched on) are recommended.

Other sources of common confusion appear to be:

concession arrangements, including the appropriate forms of identification needed to demonstrate entitlement to concessionary travel; and

lack of awareness about the availability of the free Access Travel Pass for certain vulnerable groups (see Box 7), and other forms of emergency travel ticket options.

These are particularly complex areas and further work is required to identify opportunities for reform.

Another frustration that was highlighted during the review’s consultation process is the current ability to go into negative balance on a myki card in order to complete a single modal trip, but for the myki card to become invalid if a second trip is taken. The ability to go into negative balance also encourages some undesirable behaviour because some users may incur

50


a large negative balance upon completing a journey, whereupon it becomes cheaper to purchase a new myki card rather than restore a positive balance on the original card. To address these issues, the review recommends that the myki system software be changed to remove the ability to go into negative balance.

The inclusion of a day’s travel on a new myki card would also remove a common source of confusion (ie, that a newly purchased myki card is valid for travel when, in fact, a positive myki balance is required).

Improved opportunities for purchasing and topping up myki cards should also contribute to higher compliance rates. Delays between topping up online and the credit appearing on the myki balance have now been substantially reduced recently from 24 hours to around 90 minutes.

There is growing awareness and application by governments sound the world of ‘nudge theory’ to encourage desired behaviours. Nudge theory is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and economics that argues that positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions aimed at achieving ‘non-forced’ compliance can influence the motives, incentives and decision making of groups and individuals, at least as effectively – if not more effectively – than direct instruction, legislation,or enforcement.

The review considers merit in exploring the potential to apply nudge theory techniques to improve public transport ticketing compliance. This might include the introduction of initiatives to recognise and reward good compliance by public transport users.

Box 10 summarises the review’s recommendations to improve ticketing and system arrangements in order to improve compliance rates.

Box 10 Recommendations – ticketing and system improvements


4. Further education about ‘touch on/touch off’ be addressed through an improved information/education campaign.

5. The roll-out of next generation myki devices continue.

6. The ability to go into negative balance on myki be removed.

7. The initial charge for a new myki card should include sufficient balance for travel across zone 1+2.

8. The ability of the myki system to process online top-ups within 90 minutes should be promoted.

9. More purchase and top-up opportunities for myki cards be explored.

10. A review be undertaken of the arrangements for concessions (including concession identification arrangements).

11. A review be undertaken of emergency relief ticket product options.

12. The development of a loyalty and reward program be explored to recognise good compliance behaviour by public transport users.

Modifications to the infringements systemA number of operational changes to the infringements system would be required to support the proposed new policy framework. These are grouped under the following categories:

improved processing arrangements;

more embedded processes for exercising discretion;

measures to reduce the impact of the infringement system on people with special circumstances;

better targeting of repeat offenders; and

an assessment of the resourcing of the infringement functions.

These categories are discussed, in turn, in the following sections.

51


Improved processing arrangements A number of stakeholders raised concerns about long delays between a transport user being issued with a report of non-compliance by an authorised officer, and when an infringement notice is subsequently issued by DEDJTR.

This can lead to many months of uncertainty to users about whether a fine will ultimately be issued or whether the matter has been closed (particularly since no communication is entered into if the Department decides not to issue an infringement notice after considering a report of non-compliance).

One way to address this problem is by assessing the appropriate resourcing and capability of the infringements division of DEDJTR.

The review notes that the government is considering proposals to transfer the electronic processing of public transport infringement fines has been issued by DEDJTR to Fines Victoria, an administrative body within the Department of Justice and Regulation, which is currently responsible for processing infringements in relation to speeding fines, red light fines and toll fines.

The review supports this proposed transfer and also notes that the centralisation of infringement fine processing within a single entity should paint a more complete picture of an individual’s infringement history and debts to guide case management and debt recovery.

The need to improve the timeliness of issuing infringement notices should also be viewed as a key objective of an assessment of the resourcing and capability of DEDJTR’s infringements function (see page 84).

Another method to address the current uncertainty that is being caused by the delays in sending out infringement notices is to clarify and communicate (for example, via the DEDJTR website) the maximum time between receiving a report of non-compliance and when an infringement notice is likely to be issued. This timeframe may be changed depending on the level of available resourcing vis-à-vis the number of reports/notices to be assessed and processed.

More embedded processes for the exercising of discretionThe proposed policy framework envisages the discretion to exercise more leniency (in the form of official warnings, rather than the issuing of fines) in appropriate cases of non-compliance under specified circumstances.

The current legislation already contains ‘defences’ to ticketing offences where reasonable steps have been taken to comply.33 These steps include carrying a myki card which has a sufficient balance to travel, touching on before travel, and, where relevant, carrying evidence of an entitlement to concessionary travel. (The legislation specifically states that not leaving sufficient time to undertake these steps is not a defence again a ticketing offence.34)

The review notes that, since late 2015, DEDJTR has exercised greater discretion and issued more official warning letters where it has been satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist35 and where non-compliance is inadvertent. For example, holders of eligible primary and secondary student concession cards who are detected travelling on a concession ticket but are not carrying their concession card are issued with an infringement notice, but this notice may be cancelled and/or replaced with a warning on appeal if it is the person’s first penalty for this offence and they can subsequently send proof of their concession entitlement.

The review believes that there is room for the exercise of discretion to become more embedded and systematic, and that this would be facilitated by the adoption of transparent guidelines about the factors that may be taken into account by DEDJTR in an internal review before deciding whether to exercise leniency. Such factors could include whether the person committing the offence has:

a demonstrated history of ticketing compliance;

a positive balance on their myki card at the time of interception;

apparently taken appropriate care to travel with a valid ticket;

not received an official warning or fine for another ticketing offence in the last three years.

33 See regulations 12 and 13 of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006.

34 Regulation 14 of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006.

35 Exceptional circumstances’ are not defined in the legislation, but may include emergencies, sickness, traumatic events, and events outside the control of transport users.

52


In keeping with similar processes in other jurisdictions and other portfolio areas, the onus would be on the transport user to provide DEDJTR with sufficient evidence to support a case for leniency due to exceptional circumstances.

Measures to reduce the impact of the infringement system on persons with special circumstancesAs detailed in Part B, during the review’s public consultation process, a number of social justice groups highlighted the disproportionate impact that the ticketing infringements system has on persons with special circumstances (such as mental or intellectual disability, homelessness, serious addiction to drugs or alcohol).

To prevent such persons from entering the infringement system in the first place, there have been calls for free public transport for vulnerable groups. Some stakeholder groups are also seeking free public transport for young people.

Such an approach is beyond the terms of reference for this review to consider in detail, suffice to note that:

there would likely be significant costs involved in implementing this option, both in terms of the revenue lost to the public transport system (which would require a greater taxpayer-funded subsidy and/or an increase in fares paid by other transport users), and the costs of administration; and

there is already an Access Travel Pass scheme for some vulnerable groups and, this may currently be underutilised because of lack of awareness.

Other approaches to improve the ways that people with special circumstances are treated by the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime include:

better training for authorised officers so that they can recognise genuine cases of people with special circumstances, and apply more discretion before taking enforcement action;

better identification of special circumstances by DEDJTR during the infringement notice process, and relaxing the evidentiary requirements to trigger the special circumstances provisions in the infringements process; and

the introduction of non-financial options for vulnerable groups to expiate any unpaid infringement fines.

The training of authorised officers is discussed in more detail further on.

The review notes that there is already guidance material available to better identify persons with special circumstances. The City of Melbourne, in conjunction with the United Nations Global Compact Cities Programme, convened a working group (comprising other enforcement agencies, the then Department of Justice, the Magistrates’ Court, community lawyers and financial counsellors) to create an operating policy for enforcement agencies to use when internally reviewing a special circumstances application. However, this operating policy has not yet been adopted by DEDJTR.

The overarching objective of the model operating policy is to:

improve the internal review process for people with special circumstances;

assist enforcement agencies with their legal responsibilities under the Infringements Act 2006 and the requirements of procedural fairness;

provide a guidance framework for enforcement agencies in dealing with special circumstances internal review applications to promote transparency and consistency in decision making;

afford consideration to the common difficulties experienced by people with special circumstances; and

outline the information required to be submitted for an application to be considered in full.

It seeks to encourage consistent processes and provide greater clarity about acceptable evidence, but acknowledges that matters still need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The model operating policy contains:

guiding questions to be asked during the internal review decision-making process to help determine whether special circumstances apply;

a description of the acceptable evidence to confirm the existence of a relevant condition and linking that condition to the conduct;

the appropriate information to be included in a practitioner’s evidence;

53


guidelines about the timing of evidence (eg, a practitioner’s report will be regarded as current if dated within 12 months of the date of the applicant’s request for internal review); and

the nature of any requests by the enforcement agency for any further information to establish special circumstances.

The City of Melbourne’s model operating policy is available for download at http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news-and-events/news/public-transport-fare-evasion-at-lowest-level-on-record/

The review agrees with submissions made by social justice groups during the consultation process that the adoption by DEDJTR of the City of Melbourne’s model operating policy would assist with the earlier identification of persons with special circumstances, diverting them away from the criminal justice system.

Victoria’s overarching infringements framework is changing, which will have implications for ticketing infringements. Proposed amendments to the Fines Reforms Act 2014 and Infringements Act 2006 will introduce a new work and development permit scheme, which will provide vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians with unpaid infringement fines with alternative options to expiate infringement debt. These non-financial options include participating in unpaid work, undertaking educational, vocational or life skills courses, undergoing mental health or medical treatment, receiving financial or other forms of counselling.

Better targeting of repeat offendersOne of the primary features of the proposed policy framework is the targeting of recidivist fare evaders under the enforcement regime. This targeting will be facilitated by:

the removal of the penalty fare scheme – its anonymous nature means that repeat offenders are not currently identified. They also ‘benefit’ from having access to a discounted penalty (ie, $75 compared with the minimum $223 under the infringement system); and

the improved ‘triaging’ of infringements will allow DEDJTR’s resources to focus on deliberate and repeat offenders, particularly in terms of prosecution.

Nevertheless, further work is warranted to look at other measures designed to target recidivist fare evaders.

One option is to introduce a system of escalating penalties for repeat offenders. The broader infringements framework (established under the Infringements Act 2006) limits the ability to impose escalating fines for second and subsequent ticketing offences within specified rolling periods.

However, there may be other ways to develop a scheme that deals with recidivist fare evaders. For example, the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 could be amended to add higher penalties for the second and subsequent offences committed by recidivist fare evaders. Alternatively, it is worth exploring whether there are any other higher level offences under other existing legislation that could be used to deal with this cohort. For example, in the UK, the Fraud Act 2006 may be applied to deal with serious and systematic fare evasion or revenue fraud on Transport for London services.36

Assessment of the resourcing of the infringement functionsThe recommended removal of the penalty fare scheme will mean that ticketing offences will be enforced through the infringement system. This will likely increase the burden on the business unit within DEDJTR that is responsible for the administration and processing of infringements, undertaking internal reviews, conducting investigations and pursuing prosecutions through the court system. In addition, increased exercising of discretion is recommended.

This will clearly have resource implications. An assessment is required to take into account the following:

the transfer of responsibilities for infringement fine revenue collection from DEDJTR to Fines Victoria;

the need to improve the timeliness of when an infringement notice is issued following a report of non-compliance being made by an authorised officer;

the new policy framework envisages improved triaging of infringements, which will require the embedded and systematic exercising of discretion in cases of inadvertent ticketing non-compliance that occurs in exceptional

36 See Transport for London, Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy, 10 March 2016. Available from http://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue- enforcement-and-prosecution-policy.pdf

54


http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news-and-events/news/public-transport-fare-evasion-at-lowest-level-on-record/

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecution-policy.pdf

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecution-policy.pdf

circumstances. This will require the engagement of a sufficient number of trained staff who are capable of exercising this discretion in an appropriate and consistent fashion

the improved triaging of infringements will also require staff who are able to identify persons with special circumstances and treat them appropriately under the legislation, and make referrals to the work and development permit scheme, where relevant.

Summary of recommendations about modifications to the infringement systemThe review’s recommendations about modifications to the infringement system are presented in Box 11.

Box 11 Recommendations – modifications to the infringements system


13. Support be given to the transfer of electronic infringement processing (ie, the collection of fine revenue) to the Department of Justice and Regulation so that it joins the broader Fines Victoria framework.

14. The maximum time between receiving a report of non-compliance and issuing an infringement notice be clarified and communicated.

15. A review be taken of the public information (written and digital) in relation to the infringements system and the internal review process – eg, clarification of when to apply for a review and what evidence is required.

16. DEDJTR will work in conjunction with the Department of Justice and Regulation to update guidelines for internal reviews, particularly for reviews on the grounds of special circumstances where consideration should be given to:

adoption of the City of Melbourne’s Model Operating Policy for Enforcement Agencies; and

referrals to the work and development permit scheme.

17. Options for a court-based offence for recidivist fare evaders (ie, escalation from the infringement system) be explored.

18. Assess the resourcing and capability of DEDJTR’s infringements administration functions to facilitate improved triage of infringements to avoid the need to enter the court system.

Measures to improve training and support for authorised officersAny changes to the enforcement regime will need to be preceded by the roll-out of appropriate training for authorised officers so that they are familiar with the reformed arrangements. This training could be delivered in conjunction with the implementation of new training modules, which have a strong customer service focus, and which have been developed in response to recommendations made by the Victorian Ombudsman in her investigation into an incident of alleged excessive force used by authorised officers.

Training should also focus on the appropriate use of discretion, particularly in the following areas:

people who would clearly come into the ‘special circumstances’ category;

people who are visiting Melbourne and are genuinely unaware of how to comply with the system; and

where there is clear evidence of concession entitlement e.g. a child in school uniform who is using a student pass, but has forgotten their student concession card at home.

As discussed earlier, one of the objectives of Victoria’s overarching infringement policy is to keep out of the criminal justice system vulnerable people who cannot control or understand the consequences of their behaviour. While evidence is ultimately required by DEDJTR to trigger special circumstances provisions, authorised officers can nevertheless flag the possibility of a case of special circumstances upon issuing a report of non-compliance.

Dealing with young people, particularly those in special circumstances, is another area where specialised training is needed to recognise the way that this cohort engages with authority figures such as authorised officers.

Homelessness is one of special circumstances defined under the legislation. Ahead of the Melbourne Commonwealth Games in 2006, a protocol for dealing with homeless people was developed to provide a framework for relations between officials and homeless people ensure that people who are homeless in public places in public places (see Box 12). The 55


protocol was adopted by Victoria Police, a number of state government departments and agencies, and some local councils.

Box 12 Key elements of the Victorian protocol for people who are homeless in public places

The aim of the protocol is to provide a framework for relations between officials and people who are homeless in public places.

The protocol has been developed to ensure that people who are homeless in public places are treated appropriately and that their rights are respected. The use of infringement fines impacts disproportionately on people experiencing poverty and can cause them to be drawn into protracted legal proceedings.

If you encounter a person who is, or appears to be, homeless, you should only respond if:

they request assistance;

they appear distressed or in need of assistance;

they are sheltering in circumstances that threaten the health and safety of themselves and/or others;

they are unaccompanied children who appear to be under the age of 15;

their behaviour threatens their safety or the safety and security of people around them;

their behaviour is likely to result in damage to property or to the environment; or

their safety is threatened by others.

While some local councils have continued to utilise the protocol since the 2006 Commonwealth Games to different degrees to guide policy and practice on a day-to-day basis, its status within Victoria Police and other state government enforcement agencies is currently unclear.

The Justice Access Advisory Group37 is seeking to revive the Protocol.

In terms of public transport ticketing, application of the protocol could help in the exercising of discretion by authorised officers, and reduce the burden on the management of the infringement process and, potentially, the court system. If adopted, training would be needed in the use of the protocol by authorised officers, in conjunction with existing training modules that focus on recognising homeless people.

The review notes that homeless protocols are used by ticketing enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions. In New South Wales, for example, a protocol for homeless people in public places was first developed in 1999. In 2012, following a major review, an updated protocol was endorsed by government organisations with an operational presence in public places or who provide a service to assist homeless people. The signatories to the NSW protocol include the State Transit Authority of NSW and RailCorp.

In addition to improved training, the review has identified other areas for support for authorised officers.

The operating efficiency of authorised officers could be improved through the phasing out of the existing paper-based process and by replacing current handheld devices with smart phones and app technology, which would provide them with more information than is currently the case, and which have been successfully deployed in New South Wales.

This would help to address one of the main disadvantages of removing the penalty fare scheme – namely that authorised officers would be slowed down since the issuing of penalty fares represents a streamlined process.

Finally, the review recommends that a marketing and communications campaign be developed to address the current lack of clarity reported by some stakeholders about the role, powers and responsibilities of authorised officers. Such a campaign would be in addition the regular marketing material that is used to deter fare evasion.

Box 13 presents the list of the review’s recommendations in relation to authorised officers.

Box 13 Recommendations – measures to improve training and support for authorised officers


37 The Justice Access Advisory Group brings together representatives from homelessness and justice agencies in Victoria and relevant government departments and agencies (including the Department of Justice and Regulation, Department of Health and Human Services, and Victoria Police).

56


19. A checkbox be added to a report of non-compliance to flag the possible existence of special circumstances.

20. A more consistent approach to authorised officer training is developed, including in the appropriate use of discretion.

21. The paper-based infringement process be phased out and the efficiency of authorised officers be improved by replacing current handheld devices with smartphone and app technology.

22. A marketing/communications program be developed and executed to support the role of authorised officers (ie, improved information about their role, powers, and responsibilities), in addition to regular fare evasion campaigns.

Appendix A: Compliance and enforcement models in other jurisdictions and portfolio areasPublic transport ticketing compliance and enforcement overseasSome authorities, such as Transport for London, operate what they call a penalty fare system which is in fact more similar to the infringement systems with penalty notices operated in some jurisdictions in Australia and the United States.

It is important to note that two common elements of all these international systems – no matter whether they are called penalty fares or infringement fines - is the ability for people to be able to pay the penalty fare or fine at a later time and the right to have the penalty fare or infringement fine appealed and reviewed and potentially withdrawn and refunded.

Anecdotally the only other jurisdiction that has been found to operate a two tier system, similar to that currently operated in Victoria, where there is no right of review, appeal or refund, is Bordeaux, France.

United Kingdom

National Rail

‘National Rail’ is the current trading name for the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), that runs the passenger services previously provided by the former British Railways. National Rail is the single network brand and overarching customer service system for the group of privately owned train operating companies which are franchised to operate passenger trains on the main rail network in Great Britain.

British Railways introduced a penalty fare in 1989 which was set at twice the regular fare. Penalty fares are charged by some train companies on certain train lines.

In 2014, penalty fares on National Rail services increased to £50 or four times the full single fare to the next station (whichever is the highest), in addition to the full single fare for the rest of the journey. There is also a 50% prompt payment discount.

National Rail penalty fares are required to be paid on the spot, however part payments of the fare are permitted. In order to pay a part payment the travellers are required by law to provide a full name and address. They then have 21 days in which to pay the remaining amount.

A penalty fare on the National Rail system can be appealed in writing within 21 days of the date of issue of the penalty fare notice. Penalty fares apply if you are travelling from a designated penalty fare station – these stations are clearly indicated with signs and large yellow posters.

Penalty Fares can be issued if a passenger:

travels without a valid ticket;

is unable to produce an appropriate railcard on a discounted ticket;

travels in first class accommodation with a standard ticket;

is aged 16 or over, travelling on a child rate ticket;

57


travels beyond the destination on their ticket.38

The National Rail system provides an option for those who are unable to obtain a ticket at their point of departure. A ‘Permit to Travel’ can be bought from the machines that are provided at most stations, and allow train travel until the passenger has a reasonable opportunity to buy the ticket needed to complete the journey.

This permit must be upgraded to a valid ticket at the first opportunity39. The price of the ticket is reduced by the amount paid for the ‘Permit to Travel’. If a traveller is unable to purchase a Permit to Travel (eg, all machines are out of order), then they should obtain a ticket from the Conductor on the train or at the first opportunity.

Transport for London

Transport for London operates a penalty fare system under the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Act 1992 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999 similar to those that operate on the National Rail Services. The penalty fare was initially set at £10 or twice the single fare to the next station (whichever was higher) and a single full fare for the rest of the journey.

Now the Penalty fare is £80, reduced to £40 if paid within 21 days. Similar to National Railways a penalty fare can be appealed within 21 days of the date of issue. In London fare evasion is a criminal offence that could lead to a fine of up to £1000 and a criminal record.

Revenue Enforcement and Prosecutions PolicyTransport for London has a comprehensive public revenue and prosecutions policy. Transport for London (TfL) prosecutes fare evasion offences. TfL Revenue prosecutors send a verification letter that invites the alleged offender to give an explanation for the alleged offence or to provide any comments about the alleged incident. The policy states that any explanation/comments given by the alleged offender will be taken into account in arriving on a decision to prosecute.

In addition, where the offence is fare evasion, TfL may decide to issue an offender with a warning letter in lieu of prosecution where it is deemed appropriate and the following conditions are met:

the offender admits the irregular travel;

the risk of reoffending is considered minimal; and

the offender has provided TfL with exceptional mitigation against the prosecution or in the opinion of the Prosecutions Manager it is not in the public interest to prosecute; and

the offender agrees to pay the administrative costs incurred in the processing of the case file.

Transport for London operates a three stage appeals process:

First stage

The first stage appeals process for appeals relating to London Buses, London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground and TfL Rail are handled by the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) on behalf of TfL. IAS accepts appeals made by mail or online. The first stage appeals for appeals relating to London Tramlink are handled by Tram Operations Limited (TOL).

The IAS and TOL may request further evidence from an appellant to support their claim. In these circumstances a letter requesting the supporting information will be sent to the appellant specifying a deadline within which this information must be provided. If the deadline is not met the appeal will normally be refused.

IAS and TOL communicate their decisions directly with the appellant and provide details of how to make a further appeal.

Second stage

Second stage appeals are considered by the Youth and Penalty Fares Manager in TfL’s Enforcement and On-Street Operations division.

If an appellant submits a second stage appeal, all previous correspondence with IAS or TOL will be requested by TfL and considered as part of their appeal.

38 http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx

39 http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx 58


http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx

The Youth and Penalty Fares Manager reviews each case and considers any mitigation put forward by the appellant. The appellant is then informed of the decision in writing.

If the decision is made to turn down the appellant’s second stage appeal, they will be provided with details on how to submit a final appeal to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP).

Third (and final) stage

Final stage appeals are considered by the Independent Appeals Panel. The IAP operates independently of TfL and was established in consultation with London Travel Watch. The IAP comprises three persons of suitable standing and relevant expertise for the task. They are wholly independent from TfL, its subsidiaries, contractors, operators and providers. TfL is bound by the decision of the IAP. In this respect, TfL may be required by the IAP to cancel a penalty fare notice and/or refund the payment of a penalty fare.

The IAP can raise issues related to legal matters, conditions of carriage and associated regulations to be pursued independently by TfL. The IAP can also request legal advice from TfL General Counsel if unable to make a clear judgment or decision. The third/final stage of the appeals process is the final opportunity for an individual to make an appeal against a penalty fare notice. All final stage appeals must be submitted in writing and are considered by the IAP. The IAP considers penalty fare appeals from London Underground, London Buses, London Overground, Docklands Light Railway, London Tramlink and TfL Rail.

Figure 8 provides a diagrammatic representation of TfL’s penalty fares appeals process.

Figure 8 Transport for London – Penalty fares appeal process

Source: Reproduced from TfL Penalty Fares Appeals Policy (see http://content.tfl.gov.uk/penalty-fares-appeal-new.pdf )

United States

New York

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a public benefit corporation responsible for public transportation in the U.S. state of New York, serving 12 counties in southeastern New York, along with two counties in southwestern Connecticut under contract to the Connecticut Department of Transportation, carrying over 11 million passengers on an average weekday system wide, and over 800,000 vehicles on its seven toll bridges and two tunnels per weekday.

The MTA has the responsibility for developing and implementing a unified mass transportation policy for the New York metropolitan area, including all five boroughs of New York City and the suburban counties of Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester, all of which together are the ‘Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District’.40

The MTA, including the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro North Railroad, offer a more expensive ticket when sold on board a train – this can be considered a true ‘penalty fare’. Peak one-way and off-peak one-way tickets may be purchased on board trains at a price which is $5.75 to $6.50 higher than tickets bought at ticket machines or ticket windows prior to boarding the vehicle.

This is not described as a penalty, rather a ‘more expensive option’ in the suite of ticket purchase options.

The MTA rules41 cover the payment of a fare and access to MTA facilities. These rules prohibit the use of or entrance to MTA facilities without payment of the fare or tender of other valid fare media. A fine of $100 or court action is applicable for fare evasion.

The MTA issues notices of violation or a summons. These can be issued by either a police officer or a transit inspector. The notice of violation will include: information advising on which section of the rules of conduct MTA claims you have violated, the nature of the alleged prohibited conduct, the amount of the fine, and a hearing date. If a notice of violation has been issued, a transport user may appear or request a hearing prior to the date provided on the summons.42

The Transit Adjudication Bureau (TAB) is responsible for processing summonses issued to individuals who have been alleged to have violated one or more of the rules governing conduct in the use of subway or bus facilities. Violations are issued by NYC police officers and/or NYC transit inspectors who enforce the rules of conduct. The rules of conduct

40 ibid

41 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/rules.htm

42 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/violations.htm 59


http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/violations.htm

http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/rules.htm

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/penalty-fares-appeal-new.pdf

include violations such as fare evasion, smoking or interference with the movement of a transit vehicle and are available for public reference on this link on the MTA website.

The MTA website provides information on how to appeal a notice of violation. The MTA provides an out of court individual face to face review process. ‘A hearing process has been established to permit an individual who has been issued a notice of violation the right to challenge the violation before an impartial hearing officer. The hearing officer will review the violation along with all pertinent information and will accept testimony and evidence from the recipient of the notice of violation (the respondent) and in appropriate cases as determined by the hearing officer, from the police officer or inspector who issued the notice of violation as well as any witness or other concerned party relating to the issuance of the violation. Respondents may dispute the allegations contained in the notice of violation by mail or in person.43

The findings of an in person hearing can be appealed. If following an in-person hearing or a hearing by mail a customer disagrees with the final determination of the hearing officer, the customer may file an appeal within 30 days from the notice of decision and order. The appeal will be decided by an appeals board consisting of three hearing officers who did not serve as the original hearing officer who made the first decision on the case.

In the appeal, the reason(s) must specify why the hearing officer’s final decision should be reversed or modified based on error of law or fact. It is important to understand that the appeals board cannot consider testimony or evidence that was not presented to the initial hearing officer. Unless otherwise requested, it is not a requirement for the customer, the customer’s attorney or other authorised representative to attend the appeal however, and if the customer wishes to attend the customer should advise TAB in writing when filing the appeal. The customer will be advised either personally or by registered certified mail of the date of the appeal. As a condition of an appeal, the customer is ordinarily required to pay the fine when filing the appeal. The amount of the fine will be returned to the customer in the event that the appeal results in a determination that the violation should not be upheld.44

In the New York City metro area, the MTA has a dedicated team that helps deter fare evasion. This specialised team is known as the Eagle Team, which was created in 2007. The Eagle Team has been credited with reducing fare evasion incidents throughout the MTA system. In addition to helping deter fare evasion, the Eagle Team routinely collaborates with the New York City Police Department to locate ‘hot spots’ where increased fare evasion activity could become a problem.45

Germany In Germany, a penalty fare system is operated across the Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr, the local transport system including suburban rail, local buses and underground trains. Unlike urban rail systems in most world cities, there are no turnstiles on the S- or U-Bahn in Germany (ie, they are open systems). Travellers are not required to feed a ticket into a machine in order to get onto a train.

Germany’s ‘honor system’ for public transport operates on the ‘trust but verify’ principle46. Plain-clothed controllers patrol the system. If caught without a valid (stamped) ticket or pass, transport users are required pay a fine on the spot. Exemptions are not currently offered for tourists. The fine increased in 2015 from €40 to €60 (AU$88).

If a passenger is unable to pay the total amount of €60 at once, it is possible to pay a partial amount of €10. A receipt is issued for the amount paid whether €60 or €10 which is valid in the context as a fare which entitles a passenger complete their journey until they leave the means of transport used.

For non or partial payment of the increased fare, the passenger will receive a payment request by post. The outstanding amount must be paid within 14 days. If the increased transportation fee is not paid within the time limit specified in the payment request, a processing fee of at least €5 will be charged for each written reminder. Germany operates a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy before criminal convictions apply for fare evasion.

Penalty fares are included in the contractual small print which travellers agree to by boarding a vehicle operated by the Berlin-Brandenburg public transport association. This contract allows for a reduced penalty fare if a passenger can prove within a week they were in possession of a valid season ticket.47

43 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/dispute.htm

44 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/appeal.htm

45 https://hartride2012tampa.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/fare -evasion-dont-even-try-it/

46 http://www.german-way.com/travel-and-tourism/public -transport-in-germany/

47 http://www.thelocal.de/20150630/fare -dodging-fine-increases-from-40-to-60 60


http://www.thelocal.de/20150630/fare

http://www.german-way.com/travel-and-tourism/public

https://hartride2012tampa.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/fare

http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/appeal.htm

http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/TransitAdjudicationBureau/dispute.htm

It is estimated that transit companies lose €250 million each year due to fare evasion, according to the Association of German Transport Companies (VDV). The association estimates that 3.5 per cent of bus and train riders travel without a ticket.

DB Fernverkehr AG (German for ‘DB long-distance traffic’) is a semi-independent division of Deutsche Bahn that operates long-distance passenger trains in Germany. DB Fernverkehr operates all InterCityExpress and Intercity trains in Germany as well as several EuroCity trains throughout Europe. DB Fernverkehr does not operate a penalty fare scheme. Instead it has ticket inspectors on all trains.

FranceThe Paris Métro is operated by the Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP), a public transport authority that also operates bus services, light rail lines and many bus routes. The state-owned company that runs the service says fare evasion cost about €90m annually in lost revenue.48

RATP operates a penalty fare system on the Paris Metro. This is enforced by Controllers (Authorized Officers) who work in team of between three and 14 agents. Controllers typically wear pants and white shirt and a badge to mark their authority.

Controllers are equipped with a portable decoder drive devices which has the capacity to read the type of pass and the last three validations. Controllers also carry an electronic payment terminal.

The base fine for not having a valid ticket is €30 (AU$44) and vary up to fines of up to €63 (AU$93) which are payable on the spot. When an offense has occurred the controller asks the offender to pay the offence on the spot. If the offender cannot pay on the spot he/she must prove her identity to establish a record. An additional fee of €30 (AU$44) is payable if the fine is not paid within two months. An additional fee is payable if a police check is required to establish identity of €38 (AU$56). Additional fees are applied if police invention is required or if the public treasury is required to collect the fine.

SNCF is France’s national state-owned railway company and manages the rail traffic in France and the Principality of Monaco.

SNCF is France’s national state-owned railway company and manages the rail traffic in France and the Principality of Monaco. SNCF operates the country’s national rail services, including the TGV, France’s high-speed rail network. Its functions include operation of railway services for passengers and freight, and maintenance and signaling of rail infrastructure.

.SNCF operates a penalty fare system in which those caught on board train without a valid ticket are subject to a fine payable on the spot, which is increased from €50 ($74 AUD) to €88 ($130 AUD) if the passenger prefers not to pay on the spot.

SNCF loses €500 million every year through people trying to cheat the ticket system. In an attempt to reduce these losses, in March 2015 SNCF introduced a new regime of fines according to the length of the journey. Those caught on board without a ticket on a journey longer than 150 kilometres will have to pay a €50 ($74 AUD) fine as well as the regular price of ticket. Those preferring not to pay upfront will be issued an €88 ($130 AUD) fine as well as the regular price of the ticket.49

Passengers buying tickets on board (without having paid the extra booking charge) now have to pay €7 if the journey is shorter than 150 kilometres – up from €4 previously .If the journey is longer than150 kilometres, they have to pay an additional €15 fee compared to the previous fee of €7.50

Public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement in other Australian jurisdictionsMost states use infringement notices or fines as the tool for encouraging ticket compliance and enforcement. Beyond this approach, governance, and administrative systems vary. Interestingly some states, such as New South Wales take a compliance-based approach to encourage long-term compliance, while other states take an approach more focused on enforcement, detecting and penalising non-compliance.

48 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b25c94e-da14-11e4-ab32-00144feab7de.html #axzz41obsWVOc

49 http://www.thelocal.fr/20150220/sncf -to-increase-fines-for-ticket-dodgers

50 http://www.thelocal.fr/20150220/sncf -to-increase-fines-for-ticket-dodgers 61


http://www.thelocal.fr/20150220/sncf

http://www.thelocal.fr/20150220/sncf-to-increase-fines-for-ticket-dodgers

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b25c94e-da14-11e4-ab32-00144feab7de.html#axzz41obsWVOc

New South Wales

Governance

Transport for NSW is the state agency responsible for functions equivalent to DEDJTR in Victoria. Sydney Trains is the agency that operates the train system in NSW. Transport for NSW is responsible for the policy settings for compliance and customer service and providing strategic and operation direction for the delivery and deployment of Transport Officer Services.

Sydney Trains, the largest operator in NSW is contracted to employ train and deploy Transport Officers across the transport system, irrespective of mode. Processing and payment of public transport infringement fines in NSW is managed by the Office of State Revenue, State Debt Recovery.

Ticketing system

New South Wales operates a smart card system similar to Victoria, which was introduced in 2010 with rollout complete by 2014.

Current infringement in NSW

In NSW, when a customer is found travelling without a valid ticket there are three available courses of action:

Verbal warning/no action.

Caution – essentially an offence is proven but the value of the notice is $0. A record is kept of the customer’s details. NSW is currently reviewing the look and feel of the cautions issued and is aiming to use this method as an educational tool.

Fine – generally $200 for Adults and $50 for Children. Offences and amounts are prescribed in the Passenger Transport Regulations 2007. Note that in NSW this is called an ’on-the-spot fine’ because the amount of the fine is a lesser amount than the maximum or court-imposed penalty for that offence. The actual fine is issued in the post after the event, and is paid like a bill is paid.

The customer is handed a card with the time and date of the offence, and advised that the fine will come in the mail. The card used was modelled on the RoNC cards used by Metro Trains in Melbourne, and TfNSW are currently reviewing the information provided on that card. Once issued a fine, a customer can request a review. Reviews are managed by the State Debt Recovery Office, a branch of the Office of State Revenue, to agreed and published guidelines. If a reader was proven to be not functioning because of a power outage, for example, the fine would be overturned. A customer can also elect to have the matter heard in court.

TfNSW do not offer Penalty Fares or a pay-on-the-spot payment to customers. TfNSW is considering offering early-payment discounts to improve compliance; and is also keen to serve fines electronically to improve payment rates.

Transport officers

Transport officers and NSW Police officers are responsible for enforcing ticketing compliance and patrolling public transport. They have the right to ask to see a ticket and concession entitlement at any time and carry card readers to check the card balance, recent transaction history and the card type (adult, senior/pensioner or child/youth).

In NSW the role of transport officers is different to that of authorised officers in Victoria. Transport officers are authorised to address minor behavioral offences and parking offences if they are observed. Under the Passenger Transport Regulations 2007 and Transport for NSW Instrument of Authority, transport officers have the authority to:

Inspect transport services and facilities for persons who may have committed or be committing an offence;

Require a person to provide their full name and address;

Serve a penalty notice to a person who has committed an offence;

Unlike Victoria, transport officers in NSW do not have powers to detain or arrest.

Transport officers are authorised to address behaviour that constitutes an offence under Part 5, Conduct of passengers and other persons in or on public passenger vehicles, trains and railway premises, Part 6, covering tickets, and Part 7, special provisions relating to buses. Transport officers in NSW carry smart phones. These are the only equipment they require to conduct their daily business. Unlike in Victoria, where authorised officers are required to carry around 4 kilograms of gear, 62


NSW transport officers found that using a smart phone reduced their interaction time, from around 15-20 minutes for a handwritten ticket to 2-3 minutes using a smartphone.

Sydney Trains found other unexpected benefits of using smartphones. Sydney Trains issued each of the transport officers with smartphones with permission for private use, and found that this has led to Transport officers taking ownership and more care of their smartphones. Another unexpected benefit of using smartphones is that training material can be stored on the phone and is available for easy reference. Transport officers can used this information when dealing with customers. For example, transport officers are able to show customers visual examples of the correct concession card they are required to have.

Fare evasion statistics in NSW

The Bureau of Transport Statistics in NSW conducted a survey in November 2015 that showed that fare evasion across the rail network had fallen by 0.4 percentage points compared to the May 2015 estimate.

The results of the surveyshowed that:

Fare evasion across the whole network fell from5.2 per cent to 4.8 per cent.

The compliance rate on Sydney trains is 95.2 per cent.

The compliance rate on Sydney light rail is 96.1 per cent

The compliance rate on Sydney buses is 95.1 per cent.

The compliance rate on Sydney ferries is 96.9 per cent 150 transport officers operated across the system until June 2015 when an additional 65 joined the ranks in June 2015.

NSW introduced a way to limit the sale of concession tickets by restricting the sale of concession tickets from ticket machines at some stations instead requiring customers to show proof of their entitlement when purchasing a ticket from a ticket office. This is implemented each day after the 9am peak period. As a result, NSW has found that concession misuse has almost halved on rail and is down by more than two thirds on ferries. NSW found that full fare ticket purchases increased by four million tickets, saving 10 million dollars of lost revenue (otherwise lost to concession misuse) in the year following the introduction of this approach.

Transparency of Transport for NSW compliance and enforcement policies

Transport for NSW provides a page on fare evasion and fines within its page on ticketing. This provides information similar to that found on the Sydney Trains website. This includes what to do if you are fined, which fines may apply and how to pay. Payment of fines is managed by the NSW State Debt Recovery Office.

Sydney Trains provides a web page on applicable fines within their page on conditions of travel. The Sydney Trains fines site provides the following general information: “If you have been fined, you will receive a penalty notice in the mail within 7-10 days. Payment can be made to the by mail, phone or online. If you wish to dispute the penalty notice, you have the option of writing a letter to the State Debt Recovery Office or elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. It also includes a link to the State Debt Recovery Office website for further information on the penalty notice review process. Less than 4% of reviews result in the fine being overturned”.51

Western Australia

Governance in WA

There are three authorities with a role public transport in WA. The Department of Transport, the Public Transport Authority and Transperth. The Department of Transport plays the strategic and planning leadership role. The Public Transport Authority was established in 2003, bringing together Transperth, School Bus Services and local regional bus services (all previously operating under the Department of Planning and Infrastructure) and WA Government Railways (a separate entity).

The PTA was created to clarify the function of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure as a land-and-transport planning authority, while consolidating the responsibility for delivery of public transport with the PTA. The PTA’s vision is to increase the use of public transport through the provision of customer-focussed, safe and cost-effective passenger transport services.

51 http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines 63


http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines

The Public Transport Authority (PTA) of WA conducts its business with the legislative support of the Public Transport Authority Act 2003 and the Public Transport Authority Regulations 2003.

The Transperth integrated public transport network is centrally-controlled, planned, marketed and coordinated by the Transperth division of the PTA. Transperth has a range of contracted service providers including Transperth Train Operations (a separate PTA division), three contracted bus companies, one contracted ferry operator and numerous ancillary contracts such as cleaning, maintenance, signage, ticketing and printing.

Smartrider system in Western Australia

The SmartRider system was made available generally in April 2007 following two trial periods. SmartRider cards are available in adult, child, concession and pensioner cards. Like the myki system, SmartRider users are required to ‘tag on’ (touch on) and ‘tag off’ (touch off) for each journey.

Transperth offers a 25% discount to register a SmartRider card and establish autoload (automatic payment). Topping up automatically via Autoload is the only way users can achieve similar levels of fare savings compared to the previous Multirider system.

Tagging on is not required in the free bus zone, or for CAT bus services. If a card balance at the start of the journey is less than the cash fare of at least two sections, the transport user will not be able to travel. If the card balance at the start of the journey is at least equal to the cash fare of at least two sections, the transport users can tag on to travel any distance. If the fare that is deducted when a user tags off is more than the value on the card, it will go into negative balance. A transport user will not be unable to tag on again until the card’s balance back up to at least the equivalent of a two-section cash fare.

TransWA operates regional train services in Western Australia. TransWA does have a smartcommuter card which provides discounts for regular travellers; however it is not an electronic ‘smart card’ for tagging on or off.

Current infringement in Western Australia

Western Australia has what is called an on the ‘spot penalty fine’ of $100 for not holding a valid ticket, however it is not payable on the spot – it is issued on the spot and can be appealed.

Transperth train staff approach revenue protection with a firm direction compared to the staff on the bus & ferry side of the business. There is a dedicated Revenue Protection team conducting revenue protection on train services only. A person identified without a valid ticket on a train will be infringed $100.00 for any breach of the ticketing regulations. A copy of the infringement can be found on page 28 of the PTA Regulations. The infringement is $100 regardless of the number of times you have received a fine.

Transperth staff conducting revenue protection exercises on bus and ferry will approach the same situation slightly differently, taking into consideration the interaction the passenger had with the bus driver or ferry master if it is a cash fare. This is to consider whether there is an element of doubt at the initial point of sale of the ticket – ie, did the driver or ferry master sight a valid concession card when they sold the concession ticket and the passenger entered the conveyance? In this instance staff will offer the passenger the chance to pay a ‘make-up’ fare to the equivalent of the proper fare or incur an infringement.

When an infringement is issued by the officer the matter is explained to the passenger with the payment options and the appeals process outlined in detail. This detail is also contained on the infringement.

If a passenger wishes to appeal the infringement, this must be done within 28 days of the offence. This process can only be conducted via written communication (email or letter) to ensure a record of the process can be presented to a magistrate should the matter remain in dispute.

Any appeal received against an infringement will be reviewed and a formal decision to withdraw or uphold the infringement decided by the appropriate staff. In the instance the infringement is withdrawn the passenger is advised in writing with a “Form 2” issued (page 30 of the Regulations). If the infringement is upheld the passenger is advised formally in writing and offered another 28 days from the date on the letter to finalise the payment of the infringement. The passenger still has the option at this stage to elect to contest the matter in court.

If the infringement is ignored or no communication between the recipient of the infringement and the PTA is entered into within the initial 28 day period the matter is referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER). A reminder letter is issued by FER with an administration fee of $16.40 applied to the value of the $100 infringement. Outstanding infringements can result in suspension of a WA motor driver’s licence.

64


Transport officers in WA

In order to conduct revenue protection duties in WA, a person must be an ’authorised person‘ under the PTA Act 2003. A person is designated as an authorised person by the CEO of the PTA and is afforded the authority to issue infringements, obtain personal details including a person’s name, date of birth, a person’s address and the address of where the person usually lives.

Transparency of WA compliance and enforcement policies

The Transperth website provides passenger information regarding the use of Transperth services and specific detail regarding ticketing, infringements and the relevant legislation supporting PTA staff in the process of revenue protection.

Transperth website contains information on the fine that may be received for certain behaviours. A minimum on the spot fine of $100 applies if you do not carry a valid ticket or valid proof of concession entitlement. On this page are links to how to pay a fine. After a 28 day period fines are passed on the Fines Enforcement Registry and customers are no longer able to pay them online. The site explains that appeals against a fine must be made in writing, by email or letter to a listed email address at the public transport authority. No further information about how long or how the process will work is provided.

The Transperth site does not provide information about the role, responsibilities or authority of Transit Officers or Revenue Protection Squad Officers.

Queensland

Governance in Queensland

In Queensland there are three authorities with a role in compliance and enforcement, Department of Transport and Main Roads, Translink and Queensland Rail. Department of Transport and Main Roads plans, manages and delivers Queensland’s integrated transport environment to achieve sustainable transport solutions for road, rail, air and sea. Translink as a division of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, is responsible for leading and shaping Queensland’s overall passenger transport system. Translink facilitates passenger transport services for Queenslanders and aims to provide a single integrated transport network accessible to everyone. Queensland Rail is dedicated to increasing rail patronage through improved reliability, frequency of services and making rail travel the transport mode of choice in Queensland.

go card system in Queensland

The go card system was launched in Brisbane in 2008 following a trial period from 2006. go cards are available in adult, child, concession and seniors type cards. When purchasing a go card, a refundable deposit is applied ($10 adults, $5 concession), on top of the starting balance. The deposit allows users to finish their journey even when they have insufficient funds on the go card, although the go card has to have a positive balance at the start of the journey. On the CityTrain network, users are only required to ‘touch on’ at their station of origin and ‘touch off’ at their destination station – transfers between CityTrain services do not require additional touches. On buses and ferries, users must ‘touch on’ and ‘touch off’ for each service boarded.In 2012, TransLink launched a new SEEQ Card targeting tourists. The SEEQ Card operates similarly to the go card, but includes:

unlimited travel within the TransLink region for a duration of three or five consecutive days from the first trip (depending on the card type);

adult or child fare classes (no concession or seniors cards);

expiry 12 months after the date of purchase if not used; and

two trips to/from Brisbane Domestic or International Airports via AirTrain. Translink also sells paper tickets (one-way tickets in SE Qld, one-way & daily & weekly in Cairns). Queensland Rail Travel operates rail trips in QLD (outside SE QLD and Cairns metro); however these are a separate ticket system

discount offers and tourist information.

Current infringementin Queensland

In Queensland, when a customer is found travelling without a valid ticket there are two available courses of action:

verbal warning/written warning; or

65


fine of $235.

In Queensland, a customer without the correct fare who has not had contact with the system may be receive a written warning notice. In some instances, senior network officers may give a verbal warning. The customer’s personal details are recorded if a written notice is issued. If the customer has received a warning previously notice, they will receive a penalty infringement notice. Verbal warnings are most frequently used to manage tourist non-compliance in the Gold Coast area.

Transport Officersin Queensland

Several authorities employ authorised officers in Queensland. Currently Senior Network Officers employed by Translink, Railway Squad of the Queensland Police, Authorised Officers of Queensland Rail and Customer Service Officers from G:Link operate across the network. Senior Network Officers (SNOs) began operating on the network in 2010. SNOs are ‘authorised officers’ who have been highly trained to use extended powers available under section 111(3) of Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994. They have the authority to enforce TransLink’s Conditions of Travel for passengers using the network, and may issue infringement notices including fines for public transport offences.52

Under Queensland legislation senior network officers have the power to:

require production of a ticket;

require evidence of concessional requirement;

require information from certain persons;

require name, address, age and evidence of these;

require person to leave public transport infrastructure; and

use force to remove a person from public transport infrastructure.

In addition, they have the authority to:

direct a person to leave or not to enter a public passenger vehicle;

issue warning notices and penalty infringement notices;

detain person for committing a detainable offence;

with additional power to:

use handcuffs to detaina person;

search a detained person; and

take and retain particular articles.53

Fare evasion statistics in Queensland

Data publicised in the mediain September 2015 indicates that in real terms fare evasion in Queensland has doubledin the last decade54.

Queensland’s policy framework for compliance and enforcement

The Queensland Government does not have a compliance and enforcement policy framework; however Translink, as a division of Department of Transport and Main Roads has developed a revenue protection strategy. The strategy was developed in consultation with larger operators, consultants, Monash University (Graham Currie), Senior Network Officers.

The strategy consists of four streams, technology, data, education and enforcement. The technology strategy consists of actions such as installing more gates as stations and improving technology such as considering smartphones. The data strategy consists of actions such as examining the data to find patterns and to find opportunities for better education. Education strategy actions include the potential roll out of a positive light hearted campaign to encourage compliance. Enforcement strategy actions include focusing the right number of enforcement officers and the right training for officers.

52 http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/revenue -protection

53 http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/revenue -protection

54 http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-fare-evasion-doubles-in-a-decade-20150923-gjthvf.html 66


http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-fare-evasion-doubles-in-a-decade-20150923-gjthvf.html

http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/revenue-protection

http://translink.com.au/about-translink/who-we-are/revenue-protection

South Australia

Governance in South Australia

In South Australia, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI) has the overall responsibility to deliver public transport policy, planning and infrastructure.

Adelaide Metro is Adelaide’s public transport system, run by the Public Transport Services Division of DPTI. It is intermodal system offering an integrated network of bus, tram, and train service throughout the metropolitan area to 63 million riders annually, with an average daily ridership of 33,000 people.

Services are now run by four operators – united with common ticketing systems, marketing, and signage under the supervision of South Australia’s Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The Adelaide railway consisting of six lines is operated by the Public Transport Division of DPTI. The Glenelg tram, the only of Adelaide’s tramways to survive the 1950s, was also integrated into the current system. DPTI is responsible for compliance on trains and trams.

Adelaide metro bus services are provided by three private bus contractors: Transfield (Light City Buses), Australia Transit Enterprises (SouthLink) and Transit Systems (Torrens Transit). Each operator is responsible for compliance on their buses.

No country passenger rail services have operated in South Australia since 1990. A range of bus operators service country areas under the Bus SA banner; however they issue individual tickets.

Metrocard system in South Australia

The public transport system in metropolitan Adelaide has two ticketing systems.55

paper ‘metrotickets’ for single trips, two section trips, or day trips; and

rechargeable metrocards.

Metrocards have the option of regular top-ups or a 28 day pass option which offers a discount. There is also a Seniors Metrocard which offers a significant discount to regular Metrocard fares, including free travel in the intrapeak period.

In addition to metrotickets and metrocards, visitors can choose to purchase a three-day Visitor pass for $25. This can only be purchased from the Adelaide Metro InfoCentres, and a limited range of travel agents and accommodation locations.

Metrocards can be purchased and recharged at agents, vending machines (including on board vehicles) or online. There is also an option to set up an automatic recharge.

Agents which sell metrocards include various newsagencies, supermarkets, and convenience stores. Currently there are over 300 individual retail agents in Adelaide and some per-urban locations (e.g. Murray Bridge), but no agreements with retail chains. Around half of retailers are top-up only, with the other half able to sell Metrocards (but not paper metrotickets).

The cost of a metrocard is $5, and at the time of purchase a minimum top-up is required – so for full fare the upfront cost is $10 (card plus $5 initial credit), or for concession $8.50 (card plus $3.50 initial credit).

Single trip metrotickets are available from vending machines (including on board vehicles), bus drivers, or Adelaide Metro InfoCentres. Day trip metrotickets are only available from bus drivers or Adelaide Metro InfoCentres (not from vending machines).

Passengers are required to validate their metroticket or metrocard each time a vehicle is boarded. If a passenger does not have a ticket on boarding, they must immediately purchase and validate a ticket, or recharge and validate their metrocard (this can be done on board the vehicle).

Passengers travelling on a concession fare must always travel with a valid, approved concession or student card.

Current infringement in South Australia

The current policy in South Australia is to educate customers, direct them to purchase a ticket if they do not have one, and then report them to the prosecutions team only as a last resort if they do not comply.

55 http://adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets/Fares67


Passenger Service Assistants (train and tram network) and coordinators (bus network)can report an alleged offenceto the Prosecutions department in DPTI, who then assess whether an offence has occurred and may issue an expiation notice (infringement).

Transit Police have the authority to issue an infringement notice on the spot.

There is only one tier of infringement system in South Australia. Failing to comply and being in breach of any provision related to payment of fares as outlined in the Act has a fine of $220 (comprising expiation fee for fare evasion of $160 plus $60 victims of crime levy) with a maximum penalty of $1,250for each offence.

Depending on circumstance and offence, first time offenders may receive a caution.

Transport officers in South Australia

95 Transit Police (SA Police staff) and 75 Passenger Service Assistants (PSAs) are deployed across the train and tram network in South Australia.

PSAs are ‘prescribed officers’ who have the following powers in response to any offence, disorderly or offensive behaviour:

request the person alights from the vehicle;

if this request is not forthcoming, to use reasonable force to remove the person;

request the person produce their travel card or ticket and/or their student or concession card;

obtain from the person their name, usual place of residence and evidence of proof of identity.

PSAs perform a range of duties besides revenue protection – they have a part-time compliance role and none are committed full-time to revenue protection. PSAs also have a customer service role working at special events and assisting passengers navigate around the train and tram network.

The private bus operators have their own compliance officers (coordinators) who perform revenue protection – generally about six officers per bus depot. They have a similar role and training to Passenger Service Assistants. Transfield also employs security officers across their buses three nights per week. All prescribed officers across all service providers use the Portable Reader Decoder equipment that is part of the current ticketing contract.

PSAs (and coordinators on bus services) do not issue on-the-spot fines – this removes a great deal of conflict. Instead they are trained to take details, then report alleged offenders to the Prosecutions department in DPTI who then assess the report and decide if the alleged offenders should receive an expiation notice (infringement) or a warning.

Transit Police perform a similar revenue protection role to PSAs, but in addition they have the power to issue on-the-spot TINs and make arrests. PSAs and Transit Police have a good working relationship, and often perform revenue protection activities together with transit police.

Fare evasion statistics in South Australia

The following are the estimated average rates of fare evasion across the network for 2014-15:

Tram 13.2 per cent

Bus 1.4 per cent

Train 18.3 per cent

South Australia’s policy framework for compliance and enforcement

There is currently no published policy framework.

The current policy of DPTI is to educate customers, direct them to purchase a ticket if they do not have one, and then report them only as a last resort if they do not comply.

Depending on the process at the time, officers may use discretion when choosing whether to report an alleged offence, or if there is a zero tolerance policy in force then they report every passenger that allegedly offends. Depending on circumstance and offence, first time offenders may receive a caution. Otherwise the prosecutions department will issue an expiation notice (infringement notice) with a fine.

68


Compliance is generally guided by the policy and direction of the government of the day.

Adelaide Metro and the Government of South Australia provide a comprehensive site on fare evasion, fare options and how to purchase tickets, your responsibilities as a passenger and a page that describes the role and responsibilities of Transit Police and Prescribed Officers.56 This site is focused on how to comply with the system and prevent getting an infringement.

A separate site outlining the responsibilities of users of public transport in Adelaide provides information on the minimum and maximum fine for fare evasion, as shown in Table 9 on the next page.57

Applicable fines for fare evasion are also listed in the South Australian Passenger Transport Regulations 2009, which may be difficult for some people to access. Expiation notices have information included on how to request a review. These reviews are overseen by the Manager of Audit and Assurance.

Summary of arrangements in other jurisdictionsThe following table provides a comparison of public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement arrangements in the key Australian states.

Table 9 Jurisdictional comparison of public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement arrangements

Victoria New South Wales

Western Australia

Queensland South Australia

Current policy framework

No, however PTV has a current revenue strategy

Yes, internal not public

No, however have current revenue strategy

No

Current network fare evasion rate

3.8%58

October 2015

4.8%59

November 2015

0.2%60

April 2015

8.07% on trams

4% on buses

3% on trains

Tram 13.2%

Bus 1.4%

Train 18.3%

2014-15 estimates

Total number of enforcement officers

611 215 230 170 on trains and trams . Bus companies employ more.

Initial raining period

6 months. Graduates obtain certificate 3 in Customer Engagement

Passenger Service Attendants: 1 week theory plus about 2 weeks on the job.

56 https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Transit -Police-and-Prescribed-Officers

57 https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Your -responsibilities

58 http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news-and-events/news/public -transport-fare-evasion-at-lowest-level-on-record/

59 https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/27026531/fare -evasion-low-in-wa/

60 http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines 69



https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/27026531/fare


https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Your-responsibilities

https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Transit-Police-and-Prescribed-Officers

Victoria New South Wales

Western Australia

Queensland South Australia

Transit Police: More comprehensive training from SAPol.

Regularity of refresher training/competency assurance

Annually 12-15 months. Supported by mystery shopper feedback system.

Refresh 3 times a year with annual infield assessment with supervisor

Depends on changes to the Act and/or Regulations.

Power to detain or arrest

Yes No Yes (SNOs only)

Yes (Transit Police only)

Infringement system includes official warning

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Initial infringement fine

$223 $20061 $10062 $23563 $22064

On the spot payment of fine

Yes No No No No

Maximum fine $758 $55065 $50066 Ordered to pay court costs

$1250

Authorised Officer uniform

Cargo pants, vest to carry equipment

Pant and shirt, no need to carry equipment

Cargo pants and polo shirt or shirt. No vest, don’t want military look

Transit Police – Police uniform.

61 https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/forcustomers/plan/travelconditions

62 https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Your-responsibilities

63 http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines

64 http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

65 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/ptr2009357/s100.html

66 http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx70


Victorian compliance and enforcement models in other portfolio areasCityLink Toll enforcement

CityLink model and identification

CityLink is able to operate a different model of compliance and enforcement for its tollway to that of the current public transport ticketing model. CityLink users are required to provide identification in the form of a vehicle number plate, or alternatively an electronic e-TAG.

This means that the CityLink can allow use of the tollway by users who are not ‘registered’ to use the infrastructure with the grace of paying for their use within 3 days before or 3 days after travel. Without the readily available way to identify a user (via their vehicle number plate) it would be more difficult to provide this level of flexibility.

CityLink model – ways of paying

CityLink provides a variety of ways of paying for and using their infrastructure. Users have the option to:

register for an electronic e-TAG;

hold an account that is registered to their vehicle registration;

buy a day pass in preparation for travel; or

buy a pass for travel that has been undertaken within the last three days.

If a vehicle is detected travelling on CityLink without a valid account or pass, CityLink issues a Toll invoice. These invoices are sent to the registered owner ofa vehicle, obtained from VicRoads. If the toll invoice is not paid by the due date, then CityLink follows up by sending a Final Toll Invoice requesting payment.

If the Final Toll Invoice is not paid by the due date, then details are sent to the Victoria Police and an Infringement Notice may be issued. This is an infringement fine of $148 per travel listed on the CityLink Toll invoice.

Once an Infringement Notice has been issued, any questions regarding payment or how to dispute the Notice must be directed to Civic Compliance Victoria (CCV). At this stage, the only thing CityLink can do is provide information as to why a Toll invoice mayhave been issued. CityLink is unable to withdraw or cancel an Infringement Notice, as these Notices are issued by the Victoria Police.

CityLink also offers the flexibility to transfer a toll invoice to a CityLink account, or in effect pay for a toll invoice by using an existing account.

CityLink – e-TAG system

The CityLink system also offers leniency in relation to misuse based on misunderstandings. If a person uses an e-TAG which is intended for use on a private personal vehicle on a light commercial vehicle, then CityLink send a letter to inform the owner of the vehicle of the mistaken use of the e-TAG type and offers the opportunity to correct the e-TAG type without penalties or charges for mistaken use. This demonstrates an ‘in good faith’ approach to customer mistakes and future use.

Victoria Police – speeding infringement compliance and enforcement Speeding is well understood as a driving offence and most instances clearly signposted. Road users are identifiable through their vehicle registration and police have sophisticated equipment with which to record offences. Victoria Police provides public information on how official warnings are determined which factors are included in an internal review, and how to access evidence in relation to making an appeal against an infringement. A summary of these is outlined below.

Victoria Police – official warnings

Victoria Police has the discretion, upon review to withdraw an infringement notice and issue an official warning in its place. An individual can make an application for consideration of an official warning. Only one application for internal review can be made regarding any one infringement offence. Each application for an official warning is reviewed on a case-by-case basis with factors such as the circumstances, time of offence, weather conditions, traffic density and type of road/land abutting taken into account.

71


Official warnings may be considered if:

you believe the decision to serve the notice was contrary to law;

there is a mistake in identity;

your conduct should be excused as exceptional; or

special circumstances apply.

Correctly verified infringements issued for alleged speeds of less than 10 km/h in excess of the posted limit may be eligible for an official warning if:

no speeding infringements, safety related infringements or official warnings have been issued to the driver in the previous two years; and

the criteria for good driving record are satisfied.

The following definitions are relevant:

Exceptional – Nature of circumstances surrounding the offence, other than Special Circumstances, such that when considered, demonstrates grounds for leniency.

Extenuating – Nature of circumstances surrounding the offence, such that when considered, leniency would not normally be an option under the defence of exceptional circumstances, but demonstrates grounds for further consideration and possible leniency. This includes medical emergency or circumstances not specifically covered in policy by Official Warning Criteria.

Good Driving Record – A driving record that has not had any demerit points added within the past two years, and which does not meet the definition of Poor Driving Record.

Poor Driving Record – determined as:(a) 6 or more demerit points in the past twelve months; or (b) 5 or more infringements in the past three years.

The guidelines state that consideration should be given where relevant to any or all of the following during the review process:

offence complete and established in accordance with the standard points of proof;

admission of offence;

good driving record as defined;

poor driving record as defined;

type of road – dual/divided;

location (residential/industrial/school/intersection);

time of day;

traffic density at timeof detection;

speed zone (eg, 40 km/h school zone);

weather conditions;

safety related offence as defined; and

previous convictions in the past 10 years.

Victoria Police – internal review

Victoria Police provides clear information on the considerations given internal reviews. Some offences are excluded from the internal review process. These are:

drink-driving, driving under the influence of drugs, or excessive speed infringements under Sections 89A-89D of the Road Safety Act 1986;

drink-boating infringements under Sections 61A and 61BA of the Marine Act 1988;

safety work infringements under Section 215C of the Transport Act.

72


Applications for an internal review can be made at any time before the offence is lodged with the Infringements Court or before the expiry of the period for bringing a proceeding to Court in relation to the offence. Each application for review is considered on a case by case basis.

Applications for internal review must:

be in writing;

state the grounds for review;

provide current address details; and

contain letter of consent, or other evidence of consent, if done on behalf of a third party.

Grounds for review are:

if you believe the decision to serve the notice was contrary to law;

there is a mistake in identity;

your conduct should be excused as exceptional; and

if special circumstances apply.

Victoria Police has the power to:

confirm the issuing of an infringement notice;

withdraw the infringement notice;

withdraw an infringement notice and issue an official warning in its place; and

withdraw the infringement notice and refer the matter to the Magistrates’ Court.

Victoria Police will notify the applicant of the outcome of the review in writing. Where a decision has been made to confirm the decision to issue the infringement notice, the enforcement agency will notify the applicant of the due date for payment of the infringement penalty. If a person elects to have the matter referred to open Court, any review in progress is terminated.

Victoria Police considers reviews based on special circumstances and provides a definition. In relation to requests for internal review, special circumstances means:

a mental or intellectual disability, disorder, disease or illness where the disability, disorder, disease or illness results in the person being unable:

to understand that conduct constitutes an offence; or

to control conduct that constitutes an offence;

a serious addiction to drugs, alcohol or a volatile substance within the meaning of section 57 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 where the serious addiction results in the person being unable:

to understand that conduct constitutes an offence; or

to control conduct which constitutes an offence;

homelessness determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria (if any) where the homelessness results in the person being unable to control conduct which constitutes an offence.

When an application is made under the grounds of special circumstances, Victoria Police is limited to:

confirming the decision to serve the infringement notice;

withdrawing the infringement notice; and

withdrawing the infringement notice and serving an official warning in place of the notice.

If Victoria Police rejects the application for internal review and confirms the decision to issue the infringement notice, Victoria Police must refer the matter to the Magistrates’ Court for determination by a judicial officer.

73


Victoria Police – accessing evidence and information

Victoria Police provide information on how to access on infringement notices the relevant road safety camera image stored as evidence in relation to the infringement. Images in relations to infringements can be accessed at the Fines Victoria website or in person at Civic Compliance Victoria.

Victoria Police –payment plans

Payment of traffic infringement notices can be made using a payment plan. Anyone who has received a notice and cannot pay the full amount by the due date can apply. However, not all applications are granted.

A number of factors are taken into consideration when assessing an application. These include:

if you have a pensioner concession card;

if you have a health care card;

if you meet the criteria for financial hardship;

your earning capacity;

how much you owe;

whether you have previously defaulted on a payment plan; or

whether you are applying as an individual or on behalf of a company.

City of Melbourne – parking infringement compliance and enforcement The City of Melbourne has a well-established parking system which is signposted and supported by enforcement officers with suitable equipment. The system is also supported by information available on the City of Melbourne website.

City of Melbourne – parking infringement reviews

The City of Melbourne provides comprehensive guidance on the grounds and circumstances for which a review of a parking infringement may be considered.

A range of common scenarios are listed along with the information that is required for an internal review. For example in the case of a car breaking down the information that is required for a review is:

‘If your car breaks down, you’re expected to take swift action to remove it from the location or have it repaired. Being a busy capital city, we don’t consider cases where there’s an unnecessary delay in the driver making repair or towing arrangements (for example, attending to other matters first).

If your car broke down, you’ll need to supply a:

letter from a roadside assistance provider (indicating the car registration, date, time and location of where it was repaired);

mechanic’s invoice (detailing the work performed, date and time);

receipt/invoice for parts that were purchased on the day if you fixed the problem yourself; or

towing invoice if the vehicle was towed (indicating the car registration, date, time and location it was towed from).67

The City of Melbourne does not consider being unfamiliar with the road rule or the area an acceptable defence for not complying with the system. It also does not consider misreading or not seeing the sign as an acceptable defence. The City may consider cases where payment was made for the incorrect parking bay, particularly where there are smart meters.68

The City of Melbourne Infringement Review team undertakes the reviews of infringements.

67 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parking/parking-fines/request-an-infringement-review/Pages/request-infringement-review.aspx

68 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parking/parking-fines/request-an-infringement-review/pages/request-infringement-review.aspx 74


http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parking/parking-fines/request-an-infringement-review/pages/request-infringement-review.aspx

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parking/parking-fines/request-an-infringement-review/Pages/request-infringement-review.aspx

City of Melbourne –payment plans

There are two options for payment plans for parking infringements issued by the City of Melbourne. One is to pay in instalments the other is to seek an extension for the payment. To be eligible for an instalment payment plan, the individual must have one of the following:

Centrelink Pensioner Concession Card

Department of Veterans’ Affairs Pensioner Concession Card

Centrelink Health Care Card.

The individual must also be the registered owner or nominated driver of the vehicle.

A payment plan is not possible if:

the individual is notthe registered owneror nominated driver of the vehicle;

a penalty reminder notice has been issued in a corporation name;

an enforcement orderhas been issued; or

the individual have previously defaulted on a payment plan.69

An individual does not have to have a Centrelink card to be considered for an extension of time to pay. This is at the discretion of the City of Melbourne.

Appendix B Related referenceswww.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/special-circumstances-model-operating-policy.pdf

http://ptv.vic.gov.au/news-and-events/news/public -transport-fare-evasion-at-lowest-level-on-record/

Data sourced from Transport for NSW

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/27026531/fare -evasion-low-in-wa/


http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx

https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/forcustomers/plan/travelconditions




http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/ptr2009357/s100.html

69 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parking/parking-fines/pages/how-to-pay-fines.aspx 75


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/ptr2009357/s100.html




https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/forcustomers/plan/travelconditions



https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/27026531/fare


http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/parking/parking-fines/pages/how-to-pay-fines.aspx