REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT MAY 2016 Disclaimer
The information contained in this report is provided for general guidance and assistance only and is not intended as advice. You should make your own enquiries as to the appropriateness and suitability of the information provided. While every effort has been made to ensure the currency, accuracy or completeness of the content we endeavour to keep the content relevant and up to date and reserve the right to make changes as required. The Victorian Government, authors and presenters do not accept any liability to any person for the information (or the use of the information) which is provided or referred to in the report.
Authorised by the Victorian Government Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources 1 Spring Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Telephone (03) 9651 9999
May 2016
ISBN 978-1-925466-92-8 (Print) ISBN 978-1-925466-91-1 (pdf/online)
© Copyright State of Victoria 2016
Except for any logos, emblems, trademarks, artwork and photography this document is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence.
This document is also available in PDF and accessible Word format at economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/transport/rail-and-roads/ public-transport REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 3
CONTENTS
Glossary and abbreviations 5
Report summary 8
Context 8
Current arrangements for fare compliance and enforcement 10
Behavioural aspects of fare evasion 12
Issues raised by stakeholders 12
Analytical assessment 17
Developing a fairer policy framework 22
Operational reforms to support the fairer policy framework 23
Part A CONTEXT 27
Background 28
Why is this review taking place and what is being examined? 30
Review framework and process 31
Structure of this report 31
Current system of fare compliance and enforcement 33
Victoria’s ticketing law framework 33
Responsibilities for maximising fare compliance 35
Overview of compliance strategy 37
Behavioural aspects of fare evasion 41 4 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
PART B: WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED 44
Issues raised by stakeholders 45
Issues raised during the consultation processes 45
Analytical assessment of the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime 59
Key elements of the analytical framework 61
Assessment of the current regime against the analytical framework 64
Conclusion: identifying opportunities for improvement and reform 69
Part C: OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM 70
Developing a fairer policy framework 71
the need for a policy framework 71
What should the policy framework aim to achieve? 72
Towards greater transparency 73
Summary of policy-related recommendations 76
Operational reforms 77
Changes to the two-tier enforcement approach 77
Ticketing and other system improvements 79
Modifications to the infringements system 81
Measures to improve training and support for authorised officers 86
Appendix A: Compliance and enforcement models i In other jurisdictions and portfolio areas 89
Public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement overseas 89
Public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement in other Australian jurisdictions 96
Victorian compliance and enforcement models in other portfolio areas 108
Appendix B: Related references 113 5
GLOSSARY AND Fare evasion Infringement notice Travelling without a valid ticket A notice provided to an ABBREVIATIONS and travelling on a concession individual who has committed ticket when an individual is not an alleged offence on the public Authorised officer entitled to do so. transport system. In Victoria, an A person who is employed by infringement notice is issued by public transport operators and Farebox DEDJTR following the receipt of authorised by the Victorian Also known as fare revenue, a valid report of non-compliance Government to check tickets and the total amount of revenue from authorised officers. provide customer information. collected from public transport fares. Fare revenue forms part Internal review Concession entitlement of consolidated revenue. A process stipulated under Concession (ie, reduced) fares the Infringements Act 2006, apply throughout Victoria. Free tram zone by which an authority determines Only a customer who is eligible A free tram zone operates within if an infringement should be for concession may use the Melbourne central business upheld or dismissed, withdrawn, a concession ticket. district. Tram users are not or replaced by a warning. required to touch on their myki The following customers cards if travelling entirely within Infringements Act 2006 are eligible to travel using this zone. The piece of legislation that sets a concession ticket: out the standard framework ‘Gaming’ of the system for managing the issuing • asylum seekers; This term refers to people of infringements and their • Australian Pensioner deliberately taking a calculated enforcement in Victoria. Concession Card holders; risk to fare evade, based on a rationalised cost benefit analysis Infringements Court • children 16 years and under; including the likelihood and cost A division of the Magistrates’ • eligible primary, secondary of being caught or penalised. Court, which deals with the and tertiary students; processing and enforcement ‘High risk’ fare evaders of infringement notices and • holders of a Health Care Card People who regularly and penalties. In relation to public with a Victorian address; intentionally travel on the transport infringements, the public transport system • Victorian and interstate Infringements Court issues without a valid ticket despite Seniors Card holders; enforcement orders and being able to afford to travel infringement warrants to enforce • war veterans/war widows. with a valid ticket. unpaid fines. It also decides CCTV on applications for revocation Closed circuit television, also (applications to have an known as video surveillance, enforcement order cancelled) and is the use of video cameras payment orders (orders setting to transmit a signal to a out the terms of a payment plan specific place, on a limited on an enforcement order set of monitors. or infringement warrant).
DEDJTR Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources 6 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Infringement system myki money ‘On-the-spot’ penalty fare scheme Refers to the administrative and Pay as you go form of myki Introduced on the Victorian legal processes and actions using pre-paid value stored metropolitan public transport that enforce an infringement on the card. The cost of each network in August 2014, a penalty notification. The infringement trip is deducted from the balance fare may be offered for ticketing system includes the issuing of on the myki card. offences as an alternative to the fines, internal reviews, appeal well-established infringements processes, reminder notices and myki touch on/off system. The penalty fare is $75 Magistrates’ and Infringements The myki ticketing system has to be paid by credit/debit Court proceedings. requires users to touch on to card on the spot, and no personal validate their ticket and to touch details are taken. The penalty Magistrates’ Court off at the end of their journey fare does not provide the right If an appeal of an infringement (subject to the mode of transport to an internal review. is rejected by the internal and zones travelled). Users are review process, an individual required to touch on/off on Public Transport can elect to refer the matter to machines on bollards, or gates, Ombudsman (PTO) the Magistrates’ Court. At the or pole mounted machines. The PTO was established Magistrates’ Court, the appellant in 2004, as a not for profit, will be required to plead guilty Negative balance independent dispute resolution or not guilty or request a myki tickets have the ability body, providing a free, fair, diversion. The prosecution acting to go into negative balance informal and accessible service on behalf of DEDJTR has to to allow a transport user to for the resolution of complaints prove that an authorised officer complete a journey on a single about Victorian public transport believed and had reasonable mode of transport. However, operators, who are members grounds to believe that an a myki with negative balance of the PTO scheme. The PTO is offence has been committed. becomes invalid for any further independent from the transport The Magistrate will determine if legs of a multi-modal trip. operators and government. the infringement is upheld or not OECD and the applicable fines. Public Transport Victoria (PTV) Organisation for Economic Co- Established under the Transport myki operation and Development Integration Act 2010, PTV is the The electronic public transport subordinate statutory authority Official warning ticketing system used for that acts as part of the transport Used in infringement systems public transport system portfolio under DEDJTR, across jurisdictions and in Melbourne and regional with the primary objective of agencies, an official warning commuter corridors. planning, coordinating, providing, is sometimes issued in place operating and maintaining a of a penalty for a first offence, myki pass safe, punctual, reliable and usually based on a prior record A myki pass can be bought for clean public transport system of good compliance behaviour. 7 consecutive days of travel, consistent with the vision or anywhere between 28 and 365 statement and transport system consecutive days of travel. The objectives contained in Act. pass cannot be suspended and travel must occur on consecutive Recidivist fare evaders travel days only. Once activated, See ‘high risk’ fare evaders. the myki pass expires after the number of days selected, even if the pass is not used on some of those days. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 7
Report of non-compliance Transport (Compliance Travel Access Pass (RONC) and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 PTV offers a free pass for Issued to people who have The piece of legislation that people with significant been intercepted without a contains the more serious permanent physical or valid ticket or without proof of offences relating to ticketing. mental disability who travel a valid concession entitlement Among other things, it provides independently on Victoria’s by authorised officers. A report for the making of regulations; public transport network and of non-compliance records the determining and publishing of can demonstrate that due to time, date, personal details and statutory conditions governing their disability they cannot use details of the alleged offence. the entitlement to use a public the myki ticketing systems. transport service; authorisation Special circumstances of persons for the purposes of Victorian Ombudsman Defined in the Infringements enforcement; and the option of The Victorian Ombudsman Act 2006, means persons with: the payment of a penalty fare. is an independent officer of the a mental or intellectual disability, Victorian Parliament. Her office disorder, disease or illness; Transport Integration Act 2010 investigates complaints about a serious addiction to drugs, The overarching legislation administrative actions taken by alcohol or a volatile substance; that creates the framework for Victorian government agencies, or who are homeless. The the provision of an integrated including departments (such definition then requires and sustainable transport as DEDJTR), most statutory that these persons could system in Victoria. This Act sits authorities (such as PTV), and not control or understand over the Transport (Compliance local government. The Victorian their offending conduct and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 Ombudsman has conducted because of their condition or and other transport laws. a number of investigations and situation. The recognition of inquiries into aspects of public ‘special circumstances’ in the Transport operators transport ticketing compliance Infringements Act 2006 is to Current public transport and enforcement. ensure that certain members of operators in Victoria include: the community are not unfairly Metro Trains Melbourne, V/Line, caught up in the infringement VicTrack, Yarra Trams, TransDev, system, through providing myki, Southern Cross Station, flexibility in the system so and bus operators and various that special circumstances of bus operators represented individuals can be considered. 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. 8 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
REPORT There have been significant The primary areas of focus changes to ticketing of this review have been: SUMMARY enforcement action in recent years, most notably with: • the ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fares scheme – including CONTEXT • the introduction of the its interaction with the penalty fare scheme in well-established ticketing A well-funded and well- August 2014, which runs infringement system; functioning public transport in parallel with the well- • establishing an overarching system is vital to the efficient established public transport policy framework to guide movement of people around infringement system, ticketing compliance and Victoria. It provides people effectively creating a two-tier enforcement; and with mobility and access enforcement approach to to employment, education, public transport ticketing; and • identifying improvements retail, recreational and that can be made in • a significant increase community facilities. It plays the short term to other in the number of authorised an important role in relieving aspects of current ticketing officers who are responsible urban traffic congestion and compliance and enforcement for enforcing ticketing provides environmental arrangements. regulations, with the benefits. Meanwhile, a reliable deployment of multi-modal This report presents analysis and affordable public authorised officers to work and makes recommendations transport system increases across all modes on the about reforms in these areas. the attractiveness of Victoria public transport network, In reaching its conclusions, the as a place to visit and study, including areas where there review team has had regard to: and improves the international was a previously limited reputation of the state. enforcement presence. • the views and evidence of key stakeholders, which Historically, around 30 per While fare compliance has have been gathered through cent of the cost of operating risen, there have been concerns a consultation process; public services in Victoria raised by stakeholders – and is funded through fare revenue, reflected in investigations and • work that has been with the balance coming from commentary by the Public undertaken on the behavioural a taxpayer-funded subsidy. Transport Ombudsman and aspects of fare evasion; While compliance with ticketing Victorian Ombudsman – and • an analytical framework that requirements in Victoria has some loss in public confidence incorporates the overarching reached record high levels – about the ‘fairness’ of some objectives and decision- as shown Figure 1, fare aspects of the system. making principles of the compliance on the metropolitan transport system, public network as a whole reached In December 2015, the Minister transport compliance and 96.2 per cent in October 2015 for Public Transport asked enforcement policies in other – fare evasion still costs the the Department of Economic jurisdictions and portfolio system many millions of dollars Development, Jobs, Transport areas, and general best a year in terms of lost revenue. and Resources (DEDJTR) to practice regulatory principles, This can have implications for undertake a review of ticketing particularly in relation to service provision and/or the compliance and enforcement compliance and enforcement. level of subsidy. The compliance in Victoria, with the overarching and enforcement of ticketing is, objective of ’striking an The main elements and therefore, an important element appropriate balance between findings of the review are of the public transport system. efficiency, fairness and equity’. summarised on page 10. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 9
Figure 1 Fare compliance by mode (per cent), 2008 to 2015
Source: PTV, Fare Compliance Survey Results
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75% MAY OCT MAY OCT MAY OCT MAY OCT MAY OCT MAY OCT MAY OCT MAY OCT 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015
Metro train Tram Bus Metro network Regional train 10 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
CURRENT Another key instrument in the • ticket barriers at major ARRANGEMENTS ticketing framework is the train stations; and Victorian Fares and Ticketing • enforcement activities FOR FARE Manual, made as a statutory undertaken by authorised COMPLIANCE AND condition under the Transport officers. ENFORCEMENT (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983,2 which sets out the In terms of ticketing enforcement, The Transport Integration Act conditions for using public authorised officers patrol 2010 sets out the framework for transport services and specifies the public transport network the provision of an integrated the fares payable and the rules and conduct inspections of and sustainable transport for validity of those tickets. tickets. If an authorised officer system in Victoria. It contains The Manual contains detailed believes a ticketing offence the overarching objectives for information on the different has occurred (eg, a valid ticket the transport system and key types of tickets, fares, concession and/or appropriate evidence decision-making principles, arrangements, and how to use to concession is not held or including in relation to social and manage myki cards. produced) they can currently: and economic inclusion, and A number of strategies are economic prosperity. • offer the passenger the currently pursued to promote option of paying an on-the- Within this broader legislative compliance with the ticketing spot penalty fare of $75; or framework for the state’s requirements, including: • make a report to the transport system, the primary • ongoing attempts to make Department of Economic legal instrument that governs the ticketing system easier Development, Jobs, Transport ticketing on Victoria’s public to use (eg, increasing the and Resources (DEDJTR) transport network is the number of retail outlets that who may issue the passenger Transport (Ticketing) Regulations sell myki cards, improved with an infringement notice 2006, which are made pursuant signage, increasing the resulting in a fine. to the Transport (Compliance number of next generation and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. myki reader machines A comparison of these ‘two tiers’ These Regulations require at stations and on trams, of the ticketing enforcement and regulate the use of tickets the ability to top-up myki system is provided in Box 1. for Victoria’s public transport cards online in a timely system “with the intention way, and automatic top-up of supporting the collection arrangements); of revenue for that system and reducing fare evasion and the • marketing and education, consequential revenue losses including information incurred by public transport campaigns designed to operators and the State”.1 encourage and ‘normalise’ fare compliance, and continually educate users on how to use the ticketing system;
1 See regulation 1(a) of Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006. 2 Section 220D of the Act. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 11
Box 1 Comparison of the on-the-spot penalty fare scheme and the ticketing infringement system
Penalty Fare Infringement Notice
Introduced in August 2014 on a trial basis; issued at Well-established process, within the general discretion of authorised officers 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 Can be appealed – internal review by DEDJTR, complaints. Unresolved issues can be escalated to the as required by statute. Matters can be escalated Public Transport Ombudsman 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 behavioural offences relating to smoking, littering, putting feet on seats, and the use of indecent, obscene, offensive or threatening language. 12 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
BEHAVIOURAL Meanwhile, the growing The main issues and suggestions ASPECTS OF FARE prominence of ‘nudge theory’ for improvements raised during in public policy development the consultation process can EVASION suggests that ticketing be summarised as follows: compliance could be improved There is a growing literature through positive reinforcement • The ‘on-the-spot’ penalty on the psychology of fare of desired behaviours – for fare scheme has streamlined evasion, and advances in example, by rewarding those enforcement activity, allowing behavioural science more users with excellent records more tickets to be checked. generally, which provide of compliance.4 However, some stakeholders valuable insights to inform consider the scheme to be the development of effective inequitable because it is strategies to improve compliance. ISSUES RAISED BY only available to those who STAKEHOLDERS are able to pay upfront, For example, behavioural which means that those research undertaken by Monash A targeted public consultation on low incomes and other University’s Institute of Transport process was undertaken as vulnerable groups are often Studies highlights the need to part of the review process. The unable to access the scheme. focus enforcement efforts on external stakeholders consulted There appears to be a wide recidivist, high frequency and included representatives of: perception that users are deliberate fare evaders. Since pressured into accepting they represent a relatively small • public transport users, a penalty fare, rather group – but also account for including vulnerable sections than choosing to enter the most of the revenue lost through of the community; infringement system, without fare evasion – targeting them realising that, by doing so, • the Public Transport can be cost effective in terms they waive their right to an Ombudsman and of both costs and return on lost internal review. Victorian Ombudsman; fare revenue. At the same time, the research suggests that policy • transport operators and needs to be sympathetic to, and employees; and assist, ‘inadvertent’ fare evaders3 • the legal system. 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.
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 3 ‘inadvertent’ fare evaders tend the motives, incentives and decision to be low frequency public transport making of groups and individuals, users and hence are less experienced at least as effectively – if not more than most the way the ticketing effectively – than direct instruction, compliance system works. legislation, or enforcement. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 13
• The current enforcement • There is frustration about • The current enforcement strategy has a the processes supporting regime is deterring some disproportionate impact on the infringement notice people from using the public vulnerable groups and public system. There are often long transport system. Other transport users with special processing delays, which measures are recommended circumstances (eg, those may suggest inadequate to improve compliance, such with a mental/intellectual resourcing. There is a lack of as the introduction of loyalty disability, homelessness, confidence that individual schemes or ‘rewards’ to users, serious addiction, those circumstances have been recognising good behaviour in in severe financial difficulty). given sufficient consideration terms of ticketing compliance. Stakeholders are calling for during the internal review better ways of identifying process. There is a view Further detail about the main such vulnerable users that greater transparency issues raised by external and providing them with is needed about the factors stakeholders is provided appropriate support. taken into account during in Table 1. reviews, and that greater • Concession arrangements are benefit of the doubt should complex and confusing, and be given for claims of should be simplified. Those inadvertent non-compliance. travelling on concession fares should be given more time • A number of fares policy and to provide evidence of their business rules changes made entitlement. over time have contributed to confusion about the ticketing • There continue to be system, are contributing to criticisms about the inadvertent non-compliance. behaviour and manner This can be a particular of authorised officers, problem for tourists, with many users feeling international students threatened or intimidated, and people from migrant/ or unsure about the officers’ culturally and linguistically roles, responsibilities and diverse backgrounds. 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. 14 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Table 1 Main issues raised by external stakeholders
Theme Stakeholder comments
On-the-spot • There is confusion about the penalty fare scheme, particularly in relation to lack penalty fare of appeal rights and how to complain. scheme • 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 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 • There should be free access to public transport for certain groups of vulnerable (including users people. with special • Vulnerable groups are rarely able to afford to pay the upfront penalty fare, and circumstances) 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 15
Theme Stakeholder comments
Concession • A significant proportion of offences involve the failure of those travelling arrangements 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 • Authorised officers should have more training, particularly in customer service, Officers and identifying 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 • The timeliness of infringement processing is poor, suggesting a lack of appropriate process issues 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. 16 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT
The 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
Informed by: • Objectives and decision making principle contained in the Transport Integration Act 2010 • Principles that apply to Victoria’s broader system of Analytical framework Infringements, as outlined in the Attorney-General’s Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006 Incorporating: • The Character of Human Rights and Responsibilities Efficiency • Characteristics of good regulatory systems, Fairness and equity including the OECD’s best practice principles for improving regulatory enforcement and inspections Best practice regulatory • Compliance and enforcement regimes for ticketing characteristics and principles in other jurisdictions, and other portfolio areas
Informed by: Assessment of current regime • Stakeholder feedback against analytical framework • Desktop review
Informed by: Identify areas for improvement • Any deficiencies, weakness and inconsistencies and reform identified in the assessment above REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 17
Theme Stakeholder comments
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.
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. 18 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Because ‘efficiency’ and • Transparency: The rules ‘fairness’ can be amorphous for ticketing compliance concepts in the analysis of public should be clear to users, policy, it is useful to understand as should the processes the considerations that have surrounding the enforcement been taken in account when of these requirements. making assessments about Ticketing compliance should these concepts in the context be promoted through the of this review of ticketing provision of public information. compliance and enforcement. These considerations are • Subject to appeal: There summarised in Box 2. should be transparent and robust mechanisms In addition, the following to appeal against decisions characteristics of best practice made by a regulatory body. regulation and regulatory (This characteristic is also enforcement are important in the picked up as part of fairness assessment of the effectiveness considerations – ie, the right of Victoria’s ticketing compliance to a fair hearing). and enforcement approach: REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 19
Box 2 Concepts • Victoria’s overarching • The enforcement system of ‘efficiency’ and system of infringements should take individual ‘fairness’ in the context is designed to deal with circumstances into account, recognise genuine special of ticketing compliance minor offences without the need to proceed to circumstances, and provide and enforcement protection for all individuals, court hearings (which can as well as for people in be costly and resource- ‘Efficiency’ special circumstances intensive). An efficient (eg, mental/intellectual • While a high rate of fare system would therefore disability, homelessness, compliance may indicate minimise the number of serious addictions, and an efficient system, the court proceedings arising those in genuine financial level of efficiency should from ticketing infringements. difficulty). Such an be considered within the approach is supported by context of the resources ‘Fairness’ administrative law principles. used to achieve the level of This is consistent with the compliance. Priorities should • The perception of fairness administrative law principle be established to promote is crucial to the credibility that mitigates against an ‘efficient’ allocation of of the compliance and inflexible application of the available enforcement enforcement approach. policy. It is permissible for resources so as to maximise People that consider the administrative bodies and the achieved level of arrangements to be unfair decision makers to develop compliance. This means may be more reluctant policies on how they will that enforcement should be to comply. Alternatively, they exercise discretionary powers focused on ‘high risk’ parties may be more inclined to in particular cases, but they – in the public transport take their chances in court, cannot do so in a way that sphere, this means users with adding to the costs of the applies the policy without a poor record of compliance enforcement system. regard or apparent regard (ie, repeat fare evaders). • Consistency and for the merits of the • It is recognised that achieving predictability of approach applicant’s case. 100% compliance of any is important to retaining • The Charter of Human regulation is impractical public understanding Rights and Responsibilities and can be costly. In the case of, confidence in, and contains elements that of public transport ticketing, compliance with the are relevant to the ‘fairness’ behavioural factors and enforcement system. of ticketing enforcement. system failures mean there If there is a perception For example, the charter will always be some level of inconsistency, participants provides for rights to: of non-compliance. may be less likely to -- a fair hearing; • The costs of compliance engage in the system and and enforcement activities non-compliance may -- recognition and equality should be proportionate to rise. Consistency means before the law; and the costs of non-compliance. that those with the same -- protection from torture For example, any additional circumstances are treated and cruel, inhuman costs devoted to compliance in the same way. or degrading treatment and enforcement activity • Equity considerations – this includes protection should not exceed the suggest that people should from treatment that ‘gain’ in fare revenue from not be disadvantaged humiliates a person. the reduced fare evasion because of their ability that results from that to pay. As articulated in the extra activity. Transport Integration Act 2010, equity considerations can also extend to attributes such as location. 20 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
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 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 Charter of 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 21
Criteria Assessment
Best • There is a lack of transparency in many aspects of the compliance and enforcement practice arrangements. For example: regulatory -- The difference between the penalty fare and infringement notice is not well- principles 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. 22 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
DEVELOPING A • Facilitating the exercise of This statement should include FAIRER POLICY more discretion at the ‘front details of: end’ of the process (ie, by the FRAMEWORK DEDJTR issuing officer) to • the various pieces of reduce the number of people legislation, associated While protecting fare revenue that are unjustifiably caught regulations, conditions, and should remain the primary aim up in the infringement system, other requirements that are of ticketing policy, this review including those persons with relevant to the compliance has identified the following special circumstances. and enforcement of public features that could be transport ticketing in Victoria; incorporated in the policy • Recognising the need to • the importance of fare framework to ensure a better make it easier for transport compliance to the public balance between efficiency and users to comply with ticketing transport system, and the fairness in ticketing compliance regulations – this may be key aims of compliance and and enforcement: achieved by promoting measures to facilitate enforcement activities; • Focusing enforcement compliance, such as better • measures to facilitate activity towards the greater customer information to compliance with ticketing targeting of deliberate and improve understanding of regulations; recidivist fare evaders, the ticketing system, and • enforcement approaches; with more embedded and modifications to the myki systematic discretion to system to help to mitigate • key principles underpinning exercise leniency (in the form inadvertent non-compliance. the enforcement strategy; of official warnings, rather and than the issuing of fines) In moving to a fairer compliance • the internal review process in cases of inadvertent and enforcement system, and – including the factors that non-compliance.5 in keeping with regulatory best practice, the review recommends may be taken into account that the government provides when deciding whether to use greater transparency about how discretion to exercise leniency. 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.
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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 23
OPERATIONAL • Option 2 – Return to the After analysing the strengths REFORMS TO old system: removing the and weaknesses of each option, penalty fare scheme and the review considers that SUPPORT THE returning to the single tier, implementation of option 4 is the FAIRER POLICY well-established infringement best approach to achieve the FRAMEWORK system (ie, minimum objectives of the proposed policy infringement fine of $223, with framework, which is designed A number of changes to the right to appeal through to provide a better balance operational arrangements the internal review process). between efficiency and fairness. In particular, this approach will: are needed to support a move • Option 3 – New system, low towards the proposed policy fine:removing the penalty • remove the inequities of the framework. In particular, fare scheme, issuing warning current penalty fare scheme; the review is recommending letters for non-compliance changes to the existing two-tier under specific conditions, • result in a single tier enforcement approach (which $75 minimum infringement infringement system, which comprises the penalty fare fine, with the right to appeal should be less complex to scheme and the well-established through the internal review administer and less confusing infringement process). process.6 for public transport users; • allow for improved procedural In examining the appropriate • Option 4 – New fairness through the internal enforcement approach, the system, compliance- review process, which would review compared the existing based:compliance-based: be available to all offenders; arrangements with the following removing the penalty fare four options for change: scheme, issuing warning • be fairer to those who are inadvertently non-compliant • Option 1 – ‘Fairer’ penalty letters for non-compliance with ticketing requirements, fares: maintaining the current under specific conditions, through the embedded and two-tier arrangements, but $223 minimum fine, with the systematic use of discretion making the penalty fare right to appeal through the to exercise leniency (in the ‘fairer’ by allowing it to be internal review process. Such form of official warnings, paid on the spot or within an approach is consistent rather than the issuing of 28 days, and publicising the with models adopted in fine) under specific conditions ability to make a complaint other jurisdictions. (eg, only issued to those with to PTV or the Public Transport good myki balances, strong Ombudsman. 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.
6 Note: A system of official warnings is already in place, and has been 7 ‘Exceptional circumstances’ are increasingly used by DEDJTR in not defined in the legislation, but recent months. This process would may include emergencies, sickness, become more embedded and traumatic events, and events outside systematic under this option. the control of transport users. 24 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The implementation of option These include: 4 is also consistent with a best practice, risk-based • modifications to fares policy enforcement strategy – and with and business rules – designed the main findings of the work to make ticketing and on psychology of fare evasion – transport user interaction which suggest that enforcement with myki easier to use and activity should be targeted understand. Some of these towards recidivist offenders. proposed modifications are This model is also similar already underway or have to models adopted in other already been implemented jurisdictions, including New (such as a significant South Wales, Queensland, reduction in processing times South Australia and London. for the online top up of myki cards). In addition, initiatives By facilitating the identification could be considered to of repeat offenders, the recognise and reward good proposed approach will allow the compliance behaviour by infringement system to focus on public transport users; recidivist fare evaders rather than • changes to the governance inadvertent fare evaders (who will and administration of the largely be dealt with through the infringements system – which warning letter process). include improvements in the The review is also recommending way the system deals with other changes to operational those people with special arrangements, which are circumstances; and designed to support the proposed • measures to improve new enforcement strategy training and support and to reduce the incidence of for authorised officers inadvertent non-compliance. These proposed changes are outlined in Box 3, which presents a full list of the review’s recommendations. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 25
Box 3 Full list of -- recognising the need -- enforcement approaches; to make it easier for recommendations -- key principles transport users to comply underpinning the Policy framework with ticketing regulations enforcement strategy; (see Part C) – for example, by and 1. While protecting fare promoting measures to revenue should remain the facilitate compliance, -- the internal review primary aim of ticketing such as better customer process, including the policy, the government information to improve factors that may be should adopt a policy understanding of the taken into account when framework that ensures a ticketing system, and deciding whether to better balance between modifications to the myki exercise discretion. system to help mitigate efficiency and fairness in Operational reforms inadvertent non- ticketing compliance and (see Part C) enforcement by: compliance. Operational approach 2. A public statement be -- focusing enforcement to enforcement released articulating activity towards the 3. The existing two-tier greater targeting of the government’s public transport ticketing enforcement approach be deliberate and recidivist replaced by a new single- fare evaders, with compliance and enforcement strategy, tier compliance-based more embedded and system, based on a similar systematic discretion which should include details about: model adopted in other to exercise leniency jurisdictions. Implementing (in the form of official -- the various pieces of this new model will involve: warnings, rather than the legislation, associated issuing of fines) in cases regulations, conditions, -- removing the on- of inadvertent non- and other requirements the-spot penalty compliance; that are relevant to fare scheme; -- facilitating the exercise the compliance and -- embedding the of more discretion at the enforcement of public systematic use of official ‘front end’ of the process transport ticketing in warning letters for (ie, by the DEDJTR issuing Victoria; non-compliance, under officer) to reduce the -- the importance of fare specific conditions; and number of people that compliance to the public -- retaining the existing are unjustifiably caught transport system, and the and well-established up in the infringement key aims of compliance infringement system, system; and and enforcement with a minimum $223 fine activities; and the right to appeal -- measures to facilitate through the internal compliance with ticketing review process. regulations; 26 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Ticketing and system Modifications to the 17. Options for a court-based improvements infringements system offence for recidivist fare 4. Further education about 13. Support be given to the evaders (ie, escalation ‘touch on/touch off’ be transfer of electronic from the infringement implemented through an infringement processing system) be explored. improved information/ (ie, the collection of fine 18. Assess the resourcing education campaign. revenue) to the Department and capability of of Justice and Regulation DEDJTR’s infringements 5. The roll-out of next so that it joins the broader administration functions generation myki devices Fines Victoria framework. be continued. to facilitate improved 14. The maximum time triage of infringements 6. The ability to go into between receiving a report to avoid the need to enter negative balance on myki of non-compliance and the court system. be removed. issuing an infringement Measures to improve notice be clarified and 7. The initial charge for a new training and support for communicated. myki card should include authorised officers sufficient balance for travel 15. A review be taken of the 19. A checkbox be added to a across zone 1+2. public information (written report of non-compliance to and digital) in relation to the flag the possible existence 8. The ability of the myki infringements system and of special circumstances. system to process online the internal review process top-ups within 90 minutes – eg, clarification of when to 20. A more consistent approach should be promoted. apply for a review and what to authorised officer training is developed, 9. More purchase and top-up evidence is required. including in the appropriate opportunities for myki cards 16. DEDJTR will work in use of discretion. be explored. conjunction with the 21. The paper-based 10. A review be undertaken Department of Justice infringement process of the arrangements for and Regulation to update be phased out and the concessions (including guidelines for internal efficiency of authorised concession identification reviews , particularly for officers be improved by arrangements). reviews on the grounds of special circumstances replacing current handheld 11. A review be undertaken where consideration should devices with smartphone of emergency relief ticket be given to: and app technology. product options. -- adoption of the 22. A marketing/ 12. The development of a City of Melbourne’s communications program loyalty and reward program Model Operating be developed and executed be explored to recognise Policy for Enforcement to support the role of good compliance behaviour Agencies; and authorised officers (ie, by public transport users. improved information about -- referrals to the work their role, powers, and and development responsibilities), in addition permit scheme. to regular fare evasion campaigns. PART A CONTEXT 28 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
BACKGROUND Historically, around 30 per A combination of factors has cent of the cost of operating contributed to this historically public services in Victoria high compliance rate, including: A well-funded and well- is funded through fare revenue, functioning public transport with the balance coming from • an increase in the number of system is vital to the efficient a taxpayer-funded subsidy. authorised officers patrolling movement of people around While compliance with ticketing the public transport network Victoria. It provides people requirements in Victoria has to over 600 – including the with mobility and access reached record high levels, fare recruitment between July to employment, education, evasion still costs the system and September 2014 of 78 retail, recreational and many millions of dollars a year multi-modal authorised community facilities. It plays in terms of lost revenue, which officers, who can be deployed an important role in relieving can have implications for service across all modes of the urban traffic congestion provision and/or the level of network and hence target and provides environmental subsidy. The compliance and non-compliance ‘hotspots’; benefits. Moreover, a reliable enforcement of ticketing is • new marketing campaigns, and affordable public therefore an important element which depicted fare evasion transport system increases of the public transport system. as ‘freeloading’, and which the attractiveness of Victoria emphasised the increased as a place to visit and study, The most recent fare evasion likelihood of those travelling and improves the international survey published by Public without a valid ticket being reputation of the state. Transport Victoria (PTV) shows intercepted by authorised that, in October 2015, 96.2 per officers; cent of public transport users were travelling with a valid ticket. • the introduction of the As shown in Table 3, this is the on-the-spot penalty fare highest rate of compliance since scheme in August 2014 – the records were first compiled streamlined nature of the in 2005. 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 29
Table 3 Estimated fare compliance rate by mode (2005 to 2015)1
Survey Metro train Tram Bus Metro Regional period network 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% 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. 30 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
WHY IS THIS REVIEW • The Public Transport • policy and procedural design TAKING PLACE AND Ombudsman and Victorian for agencies and operators Ombudsman have both to deliver the right balance WHAT IS BEING raised concerns about of fairness and equity for all EXAMINED? aspects of public transport compliance and enforcement; fare enforcement, • opportunities to improve While the record high compliance contributing to an erosion ticketing regulations including rate suggests that ticketing in public confidence about in relation to infringements; compliance and enforcement the fairness of the current measures are effective in terms arrangements.8 • other options to improve of protecting the fare revenue fairness and equity; and that contributes to the operation In December 2015, the Minister • the merits of improving of Victoria’s public transport for Public Transport asked franchisee incentives system, there are a number the Department of Economic to better reflect of reasons why a review of the Development, Jobs, Transport government priorities. current arrangements is timely – and Resources (DEDJTR) to undertake a review of ticketing for example: The review team was required compliance and enforcement to consult individually with • The ‘on-the-spot’ penalty fare in Victoria, with the overarching stakeholders including the scheme, which represents objective of striking an public, rail, tram and bus a new form of ticketing appropriate balance between operators, union representatives, enforcement, came into efficiency, fairness and equity. social welfare agencies, and effect in August 2014. relevant experts. Because this scheme was The terms of reference for the DEDJTR review require introduced on a trial basis, The initial areas of focus for consideration of ticketing it is appropriate to examine the review have been: the effectiveness of this infringement policy and scheme to date and make systems and the making of • the penalty fares system – recommendations about recommendations in relation to: including its interaction with its future. the ticketing infringement • the operation of the penalty scheme, and possible options • The Transport (Ticketing) fares scheme and how the for reform; Regulations 2006, which scheme interacts with the provide the primary legal ticketing infringements • establishing an overarching framework for ticketing scheme; policy framework to guide compliance, are due to expire the ticketing compliance in July 2016. A review of the and enforcement; and current arrangements will • identifying improvements help inform the remaking that can be made in of these regulations. 8 See Victorian Ombudsman, the short term to other Investigation into an incident of aspects of current ticketing alleged excessive force used by compliance and enforcement authorised officers, February 2015, and the Public Transport arrangements. Ombudsman’s, Annual Report 2015. In January 2016, in response to a large The findings and number of complaints received, the recommendations arising from Victorian Ombudsman announced the commencement of an ‘own- the examination of these areas motion’ investigation into public are contained in this report. transport fare enforcement. This investigation is being undertaken independently of DEDJTR’s review. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 31
REVIEW The external stakeholders STRUCTURE FRAMEWORK consulted included OF THIS REPORT AND PROCESS representatives of: • public transport users: Public This report is structured In reaching its conclusions and Transport Users Association in three parts: making recommendations, the and University of Melbourne • Part A provides contextual review team has had regard to: Student Union Legal Services; information about the • the views and evidence • vulnerable sections of the review and the current of stakeholders, which community: Council on the arrangements for public have been gathered Ageing, Justice Connect, transport compliance and through a targeted Southern Migrant and enforcement in Victoria. consultation process; Refugee Centre, Travellers It also outlines some Aid, Victorian Council of important behavioural • public transport compliance Social Service, and Youthlaw; considerations that are useful and enforcement policies • ombudsmen: Public Transport to understanding some of the in other jurisdictions drivers of fare compliance. (in Australia and overseas); Ombudsman and Victorian Ombudsman; • Part B analysed areas for • work that has been • transport operators and improvements to the current undertaken on the arrangements. behavioural aspects employees: Bus Association of fare evasion; and Victoria, Metro Trains • Part C considers Melbourne, Rail, Tram and opportunities for reform • general best practice Bus Union, Yarra Trams; and to the framework for ticketing regulatory principles, • the legal system: Magistrates’ compliance and enforcement particularly in relation to and makes recommendations compliance and enforcement. Court of Victoria, Children’s Court of Victoria, and Julian for change. Burnside AO QC. Stakeholder consultations Table 4 presents a more The views and evidence provided detailed summary of the The review team conducted contents of this report. individual face-to-face meetings by stakeholders are summarised with key stakeholders in in Part B of this report. February and March 2016. In addition, the review team Some of these stakeholders has engaged with relevant also provided written government entities, including submissions to the review PTV, the departments of Justice following these meetings. 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. 32 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Table 4 Structure of this report
Report summary Key findings and list of recommendations
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? Part A: Context 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?
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?
Part B: Analytical assessment of the issues Areas for improvement 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?
Developing a policy framework What policy framework would support a better balance between efficiency and fairness? How should the government clarify its policy priorities in relation to public transport ticketing? Part C: Opportunities for reform 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? REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 33
CURRENT The Regulations detail In the State of Victoria, obligations to hold valid tickets, infringements are used to address SYSTEM OF FARE and to provide appropriate forms the effect of minor law breaking, COMPLIANCE AND of evidence for entitlement when with minimum recourse to the ENFORCEMENT using concession tickets. They machinery of the formal criminal also prescribe ticketing offences justice system. The Infringements and penalties, defences to these Act 2006 provides a common set VICTORIA’S offences, and enforcement of laws and processes for issuing TICKETING LAW powers in relation to tickets. infringements and warnings, FRAMEWORK and enforcing unpaid penalties, The Transport (Compliance and aims to achieve fairness and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 and flexibility by increasing The legal framework governing also make provision for the payment options, providing for public transport ticketing in Transport (Infringements) internal review at agency stage, Victoria is illustrated in Figure 3. Regulations 2010, which detail making payments easier, and infringement penalties for public The Transport Integration Act including safeguards for persons transport offences including 2010 sets out the framework for with special circumstances. ticketing offences. the provision of an integrated and Proposed amendments to the Act, which had not passed at sustainable transport in Victoria. Another key instrument in the the time of the printing of this It contains the overarching ticketing framework is the report, provide vulnerable objectives for the transport Victorian Fares and Ticketing people with more options to deal system and key decision-making Manual, made as a statutory with their infringement fines, principles, including in relation condition under the Transport including the introduction of a to social and economic inclusion, (Compliance and Miscellaneous) work and development permit and economic prosperity. Within Act 198310, which sets out the scheme to provide vulnerable this broader legislative framework conditions for using public and disadvantaged Victorians for the state, the key statute that transport services and specifies with non-financial options to governs ticketing and ticketing the fares payable and the rules expiate infringement debt while offences on Victoria’s public for validity for those tickets. addressing offending behaviour transport network is the Transport The Manual contains detailed through approved activities (Compliance and Miscellaneous) information on the different and treatment. Act 1983. This Act makes provision types of tickets, fares, concession for the Transport (Ticketing) arrangements, and how to use In June 2014, the Fines Reform Regulations 2006, which require and manage myki cards. (The Act 2014 was passed. Upon and regulate the use of tickets for different types of public transport commencement, this Act will Victoria’s public transport system tickets available in Victoria are establish a new fines recovery “with the intention of supporting summarised in Box 4.) model for the collection and the collection of revenue for that enforcement of both court fines system and reducing fare evasion The public transport ticketing and infringement fines, with and the consequential revenue infringement system operates responsibility resting losses incurred by public transport under the broader infringement with a new administrative body operators and the State”.9 framework established under the within the Department Infringements Act 2006. of Justice and Regulation, known as Fines Victoria. The default commencement date is 31 December 2017.
9 See section 1(a) of Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006. 10 Section 220D of the Act. 34 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Figure 3 Public transport ticketing in Victoria – the legal framework
Transport Integration Act 2010 Infringements Act 2006 Creates the framework for the provision of an integrated Sets out a standard framework for and sustainable transport system in Victoria. Contains managing the issuing of infringements overarching objectives for the transport system in and their enforcement in Victoria. relation to: social and economic inclusion; environmental The Act was introduced to: sustainability; effective integration of transport and land use; efficiency, coordination and reliability; and safety, • provide a common set of laws and health and well being. processes for issuing infringements and warnings, and enforcing unpaid penalties; • increase fairness and flexibility by increasing payment options, providing for Transport (Compliance and internal review at agency stage, making Miscellaneous) Act 1983 payments easier, and including safeguards for persons with special circumstances; and Contains the more serious offences relating to ticketing (eg, fraudulently or dishonestly obtaining a ticket, • provide more sanctions against fine counterfeiting or altering a ticket etc). Provides for the defaulters, including: wheel clamping, making of regulations; determining and publishing of prevention of vehicle registration statutory conditions governing the entitlement to use renewal, and licence and vehicle a public transport service; authorisation of persons for registration suspension. the purposes of enforcement; evidentiary provisions Proposed amendments to the Act* provide intended to facilitate providing the computer-based vulnerable people with more options do facts necessary to prove offences relating to myki deal with their infringement fines, including cards; the payment of on-the-spot penalty fares as an the introduction of a work and development alternative to the taking of any other enforcement action. permit scheme to provide vulnerable and disadvantaged Victorians with non-financial options to expiate infringement debt while addressing offending behaviour through Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006 approved activities and treatment. Contains the main ticketing offences (ie, failure to hold a valid ticket, failure to produce a valid ticket or evidence of a concession entitlement); a three- limbed statutory defence to valid ticket offences; provisions that specify the on-the-spot penalty ticket Fines Reform Act 2014 offences, the amount of the on-the-spot penalty fare Establishes a new fines recovery model and records that must be kept in relation to on-the- for the collection and enforcement of spot penalty tickets and the receipt of on-the-spot infringements and court fines in Victoria, penalty fares; provisions relating to ticket contracts, with responsibility for enforcement certain ticket conditions, and transfer, inspection and resting within the administrative body surrender of tickets; specific offence provisions for called Fines Victoria. bus passengers and bus drivers; prescribed devices and prescribed processes referred to above, which identify all devices and processes used to capture, process, store and recover the data needed to prove the necessary facts.
Statutory Conditions These are determined by the Secretary of DEDJTR following consultation with PTV and are published in the Government Gazette. They are contained in the Victorian Fares and Ticketing Manual, which provides information on types of tickets, fares, conditions of travel and how to use and manage myki cards.
The Manual sets the conditions for using public transport services under the main ticketing systems used in Victoria (including the myki system) and specifies the fares payable and the rules for validity for those tickets. The Manual sets out conditions that have been determined under section 220D(1) of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 35
Box 4 Different types Myki cards are used on V/Line paper tickets authorise of public transport tickets metropolitan Melbourne’s travel on V/Line trains and in Victoria trains, trams and buses, V/Line coaches on a single trip, daily, commuter train services and weekly, monthly or date-to-date Tickets include myki cards, buses in major regional centres. (10 to 52 weeks) basis. V/Line paper tickets and myki cards can be used to regional bus paper tickets. authorise travel on a pay-as- Regional bus paper tickets These are supplemented by you-go basis using value stored authorise travel on a 2-hour, a range of concessions (eg, on the card (known as ‘myki daily, weekly or monthly basis. students, seniors, veterans and money’) or by pre-purchasing holders of Health Care Cards), entitlement to a period of travel and free travel for eligible users. for a week, or from 28 to 365 days (‘myki pass’). In order to be Day passes are made valid for travel, myki cards have available to community to be validated by ‘touching on’ service organisations and myki reader machines at train charities representing disabled stations, on trams or on buses. or severely disadvantaged people, and can be used in emergencies (eg, when travelling to/from medical appointments, counselling sessions or temporary/crisis accommodation).
RESPONSIBILITIES • Public Transport Victoria In addition to their own (PTV) – which is a statutory responsibilities, agreements FOR MAXIMISING authority established under between the public transport FARE COMPLIANCE the Transport Integration Act operators and PTV contain 2010 that acts as a system a number of contractual The governance of fare authority for all public obligations relating to the compliance in Victoria involves transport and an advocate for protection of fare revenue. a number of different entities, public transport users; and While the conditions vary including: between operators, the key • public transport operators, elements are displayed in and the Bus Association of • DEDJTR; the figure. Victoria (BusVic).11 • The responsibilities of each of these entities is shown in Figure 4.
11 BusVic is the voluntary professional association for Victoria’s accredited route, school, tour and charter and non-accredited bus and coach operators. 36 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Figure 4 Governance of fare compliance – responsibilities of different entities
DEDJTR • Strategic policy for revenue compliance, fares and ticketing. • Issuing ticket infringement notices and managing appeals and payments related to these. • Prosecuting offenders through the Courts where necessary. • Accrediting authorised officers to ensure they have the legal power to undertake their duties. • Introducing regulatory and legislative change relating to the enforcement of public transport ticketing.
PTV PUBLIC TRANSPORT OPERATORS • Setting the strategic framework for revenue • Managing customer service staff to maximise protection policy. fare compliance, (eg, through staffing ticket barriers at stations, providing information at • Coordinating fare compliance, ticketing tram and bus stops). solutions and enforcement activities across the network. • Supporting the conduct of the fare compliance survey through commitment of authorised • Promoting innovation and overseeing specific officers. initiatives to lead the industry. • Contributing to MMAO deployment planning. • Developing and undertaking marketing and information campaigns • Providing timely and accurate metrics to support monitoring of revenue protection activities. • Planning system upgrade projects (such as installing additional myki readers, card vending machines, retail outlets or ticket barriers). • Managing updates to the ticketing conditions and new policy. • Undertaking regular fare compliance surveys, sharing the results with operators and publishing overall results in a timely fashion. • Developing overall strategy and deployment plans for multi-modal authorised officers.
AGREEMENTS WITH PTV REQUIRE OPERATORS TO: • Use reasonable endeavours to ensure passengers have valid tickets (including eligibility for concessions). • Employ agreed numbers of Authorised Officers and managing their deployment. • Employ agreed numbers of customer service staff and managing their deployment. • Work with PTV to develop, implement and comply with a network revenue protection plan. • Maintain accurate records and providing reports to PTV on revenue protection measures. • Support and assist PTV in the collection and analysis of PTV network data. • Close and staff ticket barriers at nominated stations for a set time every day (Metro and V/Line). REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 37
OVERVIEW OF Authorised officers may work in ‘On-the-spot’ penalty COMPLIANCE uniform or plain clothes, and are fare scheme identified by carrying a State STRATEGY of Victoria Authorised Officer In August 2014, PTV introduced badge, photo identification, and a trial of a penalty fare scheme, A number of strategies are portable handheld myki ticket which offers an alternative to the currently pursued to promote readers. They have the authority report of non-compliance, which compliance with the ticketing to inspect tickets and concession is issued under the infringement requirements, including: entitlements, where appropriate, system that has traditionally even when passengers have left been applied to ticketing • ongoing attempts to make the vehicle or the paid area of offences (see section 3.3.2). the ticketing system easier a station. The legislation to support the to use (eg, increasing the penalty fare scheme was number of retail outlets that If an authorised officer believes passed in late 2013. sell myki cards, improved an offence has occurred, (eg, signage, increasing the a valid ticket and/or appropriate The penalty fare is $75 and is number of myki reader evidence to concession is not paid ‘on the spot’ by EFTPOS or machines at stations and held or produced), they can: credit card. Passengers’ names on trams; the ability to and addresses are not taken and, top-up myki cards online; • offer the passenger the once paid, a penalty fare cannot and automatic top-up option of paying an ‘on-the- be reviewed. While no formal arrangements); spot’ penalty fare of $75; or refund or appeal provisions • marketing and education, • make a report to DEDJTR apply, PTV will receive complaints including information who may issue the passenger about penalty fares and issues campaigns designed to with an infringement notice may be escalated to the Public encourage and ‘normalise’ fare resulting in a fine; Transport Ombudsman. (There compliance, and continually appears, however, to be a lack • arrest the passenger until the educate users on how to use of public awareness about this police arrive if the passenger the ticketing system; complaints process). refuses to comply; and • ticket barriers at major train Penalty fares are only offered • seek surrender of tickets for stations; and for ticketing offences where use as evidence if necessary. the passenger: • enforcement activities The penalty fare scheme and undertaken by authorised • travels without a valid ticket infringement notice system officers. or fails to produce a valid represent a ‘two tier’ approach ticket on request; or Authorised officers represent to ticketing enforcement the ‘front line’ of public transport system in Victoria. As outlined • travels on a concession enforcement measures. They in the sections below, the two ticket without evidence are granted powers by the alternative approaches are of concession entitlement Victorian Government – via very different. (or fails to produce this an authorisation process evidence on request). undertaken by DEDJTR pursuant to the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 – and employed by accredited public transport operators to check tickets on trains, trams and buses across Victoria. 38 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
A penalty fare is not offered Public transport Figure 5 provides a high level where a passenger is: infringement system overview of the infringement process, which involves the • committing a behavioural In Victoria, infringements are following key steps: offence (such as smoking used to address the effect of or putting feet on seats); minor law breaking with minimum • if an authorised officer believes an offence has • committing multiple offences; recourse to the machinery of the formal criminal justice system. been made, a report • committing a serious fare Infringement notices are set of non-compliance (RONC) evasion offence, such out in more than 60 Victorian is completed, requiring as fraud or producing Acts, including the Transport the name and address a counterfeit ticket; (Compliance and Miscellaneous) details of the passenger; • travelling on a V/Line Act 1983. The overarching • the RONC is passed to service; or framework for the process DEDJTR, which may then of infringements is set out issue an infringement notice • under 18 years old. in the Infringements Act 2006. to the passenger, which carries a minimum fine Because name and address Infringement penalties for of $223 (or $76 for those details do not need to provided, public transport offences such aged under 18);12 and transactions are card- as ticketing are contained in based, the issuing of penalty the Transport (Infringements) • the infringement notice fares represents a streamlined Regulations 2010. includes details of how process. The short interaction to apply for an internal times allows authorised officers The public transport review where passengers to check a greater number of infringement system is well- want to appeal against tickets, increasing their visibility established, and continues the infringement; on the public transport network. to operate in parallel with the penalty fare scheme. It covers • internal reviews are both ticketing and behavioural conducted by DEDJTR; and offences on public transport, • if appeals are rejected, can be used for multiple passengers have the option offences, and is applicable of escalating the matter across the public transport to the Magistrates’ Court. 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.
12 Infringement fines are subject to an escalation process, depending on when action is taken to pay them. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 39
Figure 5 High level overview of the infringement process
Source: Adapted from PTV
AUTHORISED OFFICER FORMS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED
Authorised officer completes a report of non-compliance (RONC)
DEDJTR receives, quality checks and assesses RONC PENALTY FARE RONC passes assessment OFFERED AND ACCEPTED Infringement notice issued
Passenger receives infringement notice
PASSENGER CAN CHOOSE TO TAKE ANY OF THE MATTER FOUR ACTIONS BELOW, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FINALISED THE INFRINGEMENTS PROCESS TIMELINE
1 2 3 4
TAKE NO REQUEST PAY FINE ELECT ACTION INTERNAL FOR REVIEW MAGISTRATES’ COURT
Follows Appeal Appeal Proceed to infringement rejected upheld Magistrates’ process timeline Court
INFRINGEMENT PROCESS TIMELINE
42 DAYS PENALTY 42 DAYS 17 DAYS INFRINGEMENT REMINDER FINAL INFRINGEMENTS NOTICE NOTICE DEMAND COURT 40 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Comparison of penalty fares and the ticketing infringement system
The 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
No internal review process, although PTV will receive Can be appealed – internal review by DEDJTR, complaints. Unresolved issues can be escalated as required by statute. Matters can be escalated to the Public Transport Ombudsman 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 41
BEHAVIOURAL • there may be confusion about -- a ‘rational’ financial the way that the ticketing decision – some users may ASPECTS OF system works – for instance: make an assessment of FARE EVASION the likelihood of getting -- those holding tickets may caught without a valid not be familiar with the In order to implement effective ticket and hence the total rules regarding validation policies to facilitate ticketing fines they are likely to incur of tickets (eg, knowing compliance, it is important to over time. If they believe when or how to touch on/ understand the key behavioural this will be lower than the off myki cards) – these aspects of fare evasion – what total costs of purchasing rules are becoming factors cause people to fare a valid ticket, they may increasingly complex and evade? Work undertaken on justify fare evading on vary by mode of transport the psychology of fare evasion, the basis that they will be (see Table 6 in Part B); and advances in behavioural financially better off, even science more generally, provide -- the rules for entitlement to though they are breaking valuable insights to inform concession tickets may be the law; and the development of effective misunderstood, including -- some users who are just strategies to improve compliance. the appropriate form cheating the system of identification that is because they inherently Public transport users may not required to be shown dishonest. They may hold a valid ticket for a number to prove entitlement; of reasons – for example: consider that it is easy • users may inadvertently be to travel without a valid • users may be unable to find travelling without their myki ticket, and believe that a functional vending machine card (eg, left it at home); it is a victimless crime or retail outlet at which (ie, no-one is hurt because • users travelling on concession to purchase a ticket; of fare evasion). tickets may not be carrying • non-functional myki readers the appropriate form of The majority of examples in the may prevent users from identification to prove list above represent unintentional touching on and validating entitlement (even though they or accidental fare evasion. Work their tickets for travel; do qualify for concessionary on the psychology of fare evasion arrangements); • users may have inadvertently undertaken by the Institute of Transport Studies at Monash not touched on; • some users may have special University on behalf of PTV circumstances that prevent • crowded trams or train indicates that, while inadvertent them from holding a valid platforms may hinder fare evaders accounted for ticket (such as low incomes, the ability of users to almost 15 per cent of the homelessness, mental validate their myki cards Melbourne population incapacity/disability, or severe in a timely fashion; in 2011-12, the fare revenue lost addiction problems); as a result of this group was • some users may deliberately $4 million, or around 5 per cent choose not to hold a valid of the total revenue lost from ticket. This choice may reflect: fare evasion (see Table 5 on the next page). People in this group -- a form of ‘protest’ to express dissatisfaction tend to evade only once and with aspects of the public have very little intention to transport system (eg, evade again. quality of service, cost of travel, the ‘fairness’ of the system); 42 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Table 5 Characteristics of fare evaders
’meant to pay, Recidivists accidental, one-off’
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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 43
For example, inadvertent fare Meanwhile, the growing evasion can be addressed by: prominence of ‘nudge theory’ in public policy development • measures to improve may have relevance to public understanding of the transport ticketing compliance. ticketing system; Nudge theory is a concept • improving the functionality in behavioural science, of the system, including political theory and economics installing more myki which argues that positive readers; and reinforcement and indirect suggestions to try to achieve non- • increasing the number of forced compliance can influence vending machines and retail the motives, incentives and outlets that sell tickets. decision making of groups and Behavioural analysis suggests individuals, at least as effectively that strategies that might – if not more effectively – than be effective in improving direct instruction, legislation, compliance by recidivists include: or enforcement.
• increases in ticket checking This behavioural theory suggests rates – particularly at times, that ticketing compliance could locations and on routes where be improved through positive recidivist fare evaders are reinforcement of desired known to travel; behaviours – for example, by introducing a system of • marketing campaigns that rewards for those users with discourage views such as excellent records of compliance. ’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. PART B WHAT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED? REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 45
ISSUES RAISED BY ISSUES RAISED The efficiency and fairness STAKEHOLDERS DURING THE of ‘on-the-spot’ penalty CONSULTATION fare scheme As detailed in Part A, a targeted PROCESSES Transport operators observed consultation process was that, since its introduction undertaken as part of the While there are inevitably some on a trial basis in August 2014, review process, which included overlaps, the main issues and the ‘on-the-spot’ penalty engagement with representatives suggestions for improvements fare scheme has streamlined of public transport user groups raised by stakeholders have enforcement activity by (including those representing the been summarised under the authorised officers, allowing interests of vulnerable sections following main headings: more tickets to be checked, of the community); transport a key factor in improving the operators and the union • the efficiency and fairness level of fare compliance. representing public transport of the ‘on-the-spot’ penalty employees; ombudsmen; and the fare scheme; Some stakeholders noted that legal system. In addition to face- penalty fare transactions are • the impact of the ticketing to-face meetings, some groups quicker and easier than the well- enforcement regime on provided written submissions established infringement process, vulnerable groups, including to the review. and the process can be less transport users with special stressful and embarrassing for the circumstances (eg, mental This section summarises the key passenger because no personal or intellectual disability, issues raised by stakeholders details have to be provided. during the consultation process. homelessness, serious addiction to drugs or alcohol), The Rail, Tram and Bus Union In addition to their participation young people, and those stated that the scheme had in the review, the Public in severe financial difficulty; resulted in less conflict between Transport Ombudsman and • concession arrangements; authorised officers and Victorian Ombudsman have passengers compared to the both conducted investigations • the processes around the infringement process. or released reports that infringement notice system comment on aspects of ticketing (including internal reviews); Others felt that removing the enforcement. The key issues need to submit personal details • the conduct and training of raised in these investigations was an important benefit to authorised officers; and and reports are also highlighted some international travellers, in this section. • the impact of changes to fare particularly international policy and business rules on students, who may have the level of understanding concerns about having their of, and compliance with, names and addresses recorded, ticketing requirements. as they fear it may be a future black mark against their name, Each of these issues is discussed which they worry might have below. Where relevant to the implications for visas, residency discussion, quotes and case applications etc. studies from written submissions are included. 46 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
However, the overwhelming Infringements Working Group In particular, the University feedback received from of the Federation of Community of Melbourne’s Student Union stakeholders about the penalty Legal Centres (Victoria) and the Legal Service contended Financial and Consumer Rights fare scheme focussed on issues Council, On track to fairer fares that many students from surrounding the ‘fairness’ and fines – Public transport position international backgrounds where of the arrangements. paper, 2016, p.30 English is not their first language do not have sufficient time Many consider the scheme The Public Transport Users and ability to understand their to be inequitable because the Association (PTUA) conducted options on the spot. They do not option to accept a penalty fare a survey which found that 21% understand requests to show is limited to those with the ability of passengers said they did a concession card, even though to pay upfront or who have not have the means to pay the they may be in possession of credit cards. This means that on-the-spot penalty fare.13 one. Some international students those on low incomes and other come from autocratic cultures vulnerable groups are often The consultation process also and have a defensive attitude unable to access the scheme. revealed a wide perception towards authorities and would that transport users are rather ‘save face’ and settle the In a written submission to confused about the differences matter expeditiously than appeal the review, the Infringements between penalty fare scheme the infringement (even where Working Group (of which Justice and the infringement process, they may have valid grounds Connect is a member) argued particularly in relation to appeal for appeal). that the use of the penalty fares rights and how to complain. has a discriminatory effect: In other feedback provided to the Some stakeholders complained review, some stakeholders: “on-the-spot penalty fares are about the inadequacy of the out of reach for low income information conveyed to users • considered the penalty fare people who would benefit most about penalty fares. Because of $75 to be too high, from paying a reduced amount. The on-the-spot amount is of the ‘on-the-spot’ nature of the describing it more like almost 30% of the weekly income penalty fare scheme – and the a ‘pseudo fine’ rather than for someone on the Newstart pressure and intimidation felt a penalty ‘fare’; Allowance. Even for someone by some users when intercepted • felt the penalty fare scheme on a slightly higher income, by authorised officers – some was a revenue-raising high costs of living, particularly felt that many users are unable initiative rather than housing costs mean it is unlikely to make a rational, informed a genuine enforcement that they will have $75 to spare. choice about whether to accept tool, arguing that not In this way, the on-the- a penalty fare, rather than opt spot penalty fare system is seeking personal details to enter the infringement notice discriminatory in its effect of passengers demonstrated process). As a result, it is argued because it allows middle and high that the authorities were that inadvertent fare evaders income earners an easy out, while more interested in collecting may be accepting a penalty low income earners – who will penalty fare revenue rather fare when their interests may be be hit hardest by the full penalty identifying recidivist fare amount – have little choice but better served by seeking a review evaders; and to accept the full amount.” under the infringement system. • argued that the lack of fairness in the penalty fare scheme is encouraging some users to try and cheat 13 PTUA, Fairer Fines Survey Report the system. and Recommendations to the Review of Public Transport Fare Enforcement, February 2016, p.2. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 47
Many of the issues raised by • Current messaging around Impact of the stakeholders during the review the penalty fare system can enforcement regime process echo observations mislead consumers into on vulnerable groups made by the Public Transport believing that have Ombudsman (PTO). In her 2015 no options if they wish In addition to the inability of Annual Report, the PTO reported: to dispute a penalty fare. many vulnerable people to Consumers should be be able to afford to access “The introduction of penalty advised of their right to the penalty fare scheme, fares as an enforcement measure complain about penalty representatives of vulnerable from 1 August 2014 resulted fares to PTV and the PTO. groups have pointed to other in a marked increase in the complexity of matters consumers The obvious way to ensure aspects of the public transport brought to the PTO.” this is done consistently is via ticketing enforcement regime written material provided to that have a disproportionate Public Transport Ombudsman, consumers at the same time impact on their clients Annual Report 2015, p.17 they accept a penalty fare. because they are more likely to get infringements on public After reporting a 90 per cent • The current transport transport because of their increase in approaches about infringement regime inability to pay fares, and are public transport penalties and is effectively a two tiered less likely to be able to address fines in 2014-15, the PTO made system – advocacy groups fines through payment. the following observations: complain to us that consumers who do not have As stated by the Infringements “The PTO’s view is that a revenue the means to pay on the spot Working Group: protection system should be fair, are penalised because they reasonable and aligned with cannot choose a $75 penalty “The public transport fare good industry practice and the fare in preference to an enforcement system has principle of access to justice. The infringement notice of $223.” a particularly pronounced effect PTO has identified a number of on the most vulnerable members issues that it believes impact how Public Transport Ombudsman, of the Victorian community who fair and reasonable the system is: Annual Report 2015, p.24 are reliant on public transport to get to services, work and • Consumers are required to education, and whose use make an on-the-spot decision of public transport may be without necessarily having complicated by hardships such enough information about as poverty, homelessness, mental their liability and any defences illness, substance dependence that may be available or family violence.” to them. Some people have Infringements Working Group of said that they found the the Federation of Community Legal experience of talking to AOs Centres (Victoria) and the Financial distressing and a difficult and Consumer Rights Council, On situation in which to make track to fairer fares and fines – Public an informed decision. transport position paper, 2016, p.6. 48 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Meanwhile, Justice Connect Stakeholders also highlighted An indication of the cost of these highlighted the impact of public the difficulties and delays burdens was provided by Justice transport fines on vulnerable faced by vulnerable persons Connect Homeless Law which, Victorians, who often cannot to extricate themselves from based on costs and time data afford to pay. the infringement process. available for 11 cases of public Because they rarely able to transport infringement fines “A fine for not having a ticket afford to pay the upfront penalty in 2014-15, estimated that they on public transport or not fare, they are forced into the spent an average of 51 hours having proof of your concession infringement system. Because working in each matter. If such entitlement is $223. That is 85% of the weekly income they often accumulate multiple legal costs had been incurred by for a person who relies on the infringements, it can take years a commercial law firm, Justice Newstart Allowance. If they to negotiate the system. Connect Homeless Law estimates were to pay the fine, they would that each case would involve have $39 left for all expenses – The Infringements Working average legal fees of $16,640. food, accommodation, health – Group submitted that: for that week.” In some cases, the costs can “[…] once a person enters be much higher because the infringement system, Justice Connect Homeless Law, Fair’s of the time taken to resolve Fare: Improving access to public it is difficult to exit and the cases involving users with transport for Victorians experiencing subsequent process generates homelessness, March 2016, p.4 significant stress and hardship special circumstances. In 2013, for individuals, and burdens Homeless Law engaged a There are calls for concessionary the court system, government consultant to review the resource fines to be available for agencies and legal and implications of the infringement vulnerable people (as they community services.” system, and found that the already are for children under average time to resolve an Infringements Working Group of 18 years old). Some stakeholders the Federation of Community Legal infringements matter was 14 cited the recommendation of Centres (Victoria) and the Financial months. In some cases, it can the Sentencing Advisory Council and Consumer Rights Council, On be much longer, as illustrated in its May 2014 report, The track to fairer fares and fines – Public by Box 6, which provides transport position paper, 2016, p.11 Imposition and Enforcement a case study of a woman of Court Fines and Infringement experiencing homelessness, who Penalties in Victoria, that incurred a number of ticketing infringement penalty recipients infringements, which took almost who are experiencing financial three years to resolve. hardship should receive a reduced infringement penalty amount of 50 per cent. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 49
Box 6 Case study Application for revocation In October 2014, the of a woman experiencing and supporting evidence Infringements Court revoked homelessness – 34 months the enforcement orders on the Between September 2013 and to resolve a public basis of special circumstances. February 2014, Stephanie’s transport fine The matter was referred to the lawyers obtained a variety Magistrates’ Court for hearing. Homelessness and of support letters from treating In May 2015, the infringements public transport doctors, support workers and were unconditionally dismissed the operator of the soup van. by the Magistrates’ Court. Stephanie is a middle-aged The letters commented on woman with a history of her homelessness and mental 34 months passed between homelessness, who suffers from health issues. the time Stephanie was issued an acquired brain injury and with her first fine in July 2012 depression, and whose only In February 2014, an application and the dismissal of this fine income is Newstart Allowance. for revocation was submitted by the Court. on the basis of Stephanie’s Stephanie approached a homelessness, mental illness Additional fine community legal centre after and financial hardship. The she had been issued with five application was supported Whilst this process was infringements from July 2012 to by five letters of support and underway, Stephanie was issued July 2013 for travelling without a documentation from Centrelink. with an additional infringement valid ticket on public transport. for travelling without a valid In June 2014, the Infringements ticket in January 2014. In May Stephanie was homeless after Court responded to the 2015, a new application for having to leave her rental application, requesting more revocation was submitted. property when her relationship detailed evidence that clearly In June 2015, the fine was ended. She was paying her identified the link between revoked and ultimately referred ex-partner to be able to sleep Stephanie’s homelessness/ to the Magistrates’ Court. on a couch in his office, but mental illness and the could not stay at the office infringements. In January 2016, the during business hours. final infringement was The infringements were unconditionally dismissed issued when Stephanie was by the Magistrates’ Court, more travelling from the office to than 2 years after it was issued. either a suburban soup van for The resolution of Stephanie’s dinner (there were no kitchen infringement issues required or bathroom facilities in the 164 hours of lawyers’ time (with office), or to one of her many a market value of $58,367). volunteering commitments. Source: Justice Connect
Homeless Law, Fair’s Fare: Improving access to public transport for Victorians experiencing homelessness, March 2016, p.15 50 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Many other cases studies Ultimately, many young people Despite these reforms, of this nature were submitted Youthlaw represent in the stakeholders are calling for to the review. Special Circumstances list have earlier intervention to prevent their matters withdrawn or highly vulnerable people from Stakeholders pointed out that dismissed due to their special entering the infringements circumstances. This however the overarching framework system in the first place. Some is a lengthy and time consuming for infringements in Victoria is of the strategies suggested process that on average can designed to protect people with to achieve this aim included: special circumstances, and that take twelve months and see the Department, the police and the the cost of court proceedings • granting free access courts expending significant to pursue payment of unpaid to public transport for resources processing and fines from those with special prosecuting fines. vulnerable people, which circumstances and children are could include an expansion high, with a low success rate The requirement to plead in the Access Travel Pass of recouping the unpaid fines. guilty to access the Special scheme, which offers free Circumstances List means that travel to certain users; As noted in a written submission the most vulnerable people in the from Youthlaw, some vulnerable infringement system are pleading • better training for authorised groups need to plead guilty in guilty to fines and are receiving officers so that they can court to have a fine withdrawn a criminal record where they had recognise genuine cases on the basis of special no control over the behaviour of people with special that resulted in the fine.” circumstances. This guilty plea circumstances, and apply more can adversely affect future Youthlaw, Submission to Ticketing discretion and give warnings employment opportunities: Compliance and Enforcement or referrals to appropriate Review, February 2016, p.6 support services, rather than “Recognition of special imposing penalties; circumstances in the Some groups acknowledged • better identification of special Infringements Act is designed that ongoing efforts by the circumstances by DEDJTR to ensure that certain members Victorian Government to improve of the community are not unfairly during the infringement the infringements through caught up in the infringements notice process; and the enactment of the Fines system by providing a mechanism for acknowledging the impact Reform Act 2014 and the Fines • relaxing the evidentiary of mental illness, substance Reform and Infringements Act requirements to trigger dependence and homelessness Amendment Bill 2016 should have special circumstances on a person’s conduct. The aim benefits for vulnerable groups. provisions in the of the special circumstances In particular, the introduction infringements process. process is to divert from the of the Work and Development criminal justice system people Permit scheme will allow people who cannot control or understand to address their fines and the nature or consequences of infringements through unpaid their behaviour. work or participation in a range of activities, such as counselling, education or treatment in drug, alcohol or mental health matters. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 51
The Infringements Working Group submitted that: Box 7 The Access Travel Pass Scheme
“Authorised Officers are not PTV offers the free Access Travel Pass for ‘people with significant required to obtain details about permanent physical or mental disability who travel independently or consider whether a person on Victoria’s public transport network and can demonstrate that issued with an infringement due to their disability they cannot use the myki ticketing systems’. notice has special circumstances To be eligible for the Access Travel Pass, a person must: that caused the offending conduct (ie, mental illness, • have a significant permanent disability; substance dependence or homelessness led to them • be a permanent resident of Victoria; travelling without a valid ticket • be able to travel independently on Victoria’s public or evidence of their concession). transport network (without any assistance from a carer The DEDJTR is therefore first likely to learn of relevant special or companion); and circumstances as part of an • be unable to touch on or touch off their myki card internal review process, or when independently. the infringement is returned to the agency after a successful The Access Travel Pass entitles the pass holder to: Melbourne application for revocation to the metropolitan trains, trams and buses; V/Line services; regional Infringements Court. town buses; and regional services that have a contract or service The IWG’s understanding agreement with PTV. 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. 52 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Some stakeholders suggested Some stakeholders expressed Stakeholders also expressed the that Access Travel Passes are the view that authorised officers view that DEDJTR could be more under-utilised and not as effective should do more to identify those proactive in identifying those as they could be at preventing with special circumstances with special circumstances. The highly vulnerable people from before issuing them with a report Infringements Working Group entering the infringement system. of non-compliance, although suggested that the Department It has been suggested that this others felt that it is unreasonable adopt the following measures: may be attributable to a lack to expect authorised officers of awareness about the Access to be able to effectively and • “A requirement for the Travel Pass amongst agencies consistently recognise special Department to confirm working directly with people who circumstances during the brief whether a person has an would be eligible. interaction times involved. There Access Travel Pass; check are calls for more training in this whether a person has received There were also calls for the regard, although Metro stated a number of RONCs or criteria for access to the Access that it already conducts regular infringements recently or in Travel Pass to be expanded briefing sessions with authorised the past; consider whether the to include people experiencing officers about vulnerable groups. address the person has listed a mental or intellectual disability, For example, it has partnered is ‘no fixed address’ or a crisis disorder, disease or illness; with Black Dog on the Tracksafe accommodation provider; an addition to drugs, alcohol initiative, which provides staff and check whether the person or a volatile substance; with information and training is receiving support from or homelessness. on how to recognise the signs disability or mental health support services; “Homeless Law notes that Public of people with depression Transport Victoria already or mental illness, who might • A mechanism of oversight and offers free public transport to be at risk of injuring themselves. reporting, which reviews the particular categories of people, number and proportion of To better recognise the including state and federal RONCs and infringements that circumstances of suffering Members of Parliament, judges are subsequently withdrawn homelessness, Homeless Law and some Public Transport or dismissed, including on the Victoria employees. Homeless is working with a number of basis of special circumstances; Law recommends that this specialist homelessness and generosity is extended to the justice agencies to revive • Increasing the scope most vulnerable Victorians least and strengthen the Homeless of the Official Warning in lieu of in a position to afford a public People in Public Places Protocol, Infringement Notice policy at transport fare.” which is a high level document RONC review stage; that provides a framework Source: Justice Connect Homeless • Introducing a more Law, Fair’s Fare: Improving access and guidance for dealing transparent and rigorous to public transport for Victorians with people experiencing internal review policy. experiencing homelessness, homelessness. The Protocol March 2016, p.18 The policy could be based aims to support enforcement on the City of Melbourne’s officers to make decisions other Model Operating Policy for than fining people, including Enforcement Agencies; and through supporting appropriate interactions with people experiencing homelessness and providing referral pathways to services or supports. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 53
• Open channels of Meanwhile, there are concerns Stakeholders have observed communication with legal that, because some vulnerable that a significant proportion services, financial counsellors people have been isolated of ticketing offences involve and other community services and disengaged, obtaining the the failure of those travelling providing advocacy for clients required evidence to demonstrate on a concession ticket to provide issued with infringements for special circumstances can be a entitlement evidence because public transport offences, barrier to successful revocation they have neglected to carry the to provide direct insight applications. According to some appropriate form of identification. into systemic issues that could stakeholders, in many cases, The PTUA found that 22 per be addressed.” medical professionals have asked cent of surveyed users who had Infringements Working Group of for $300 to $600 for a medical received a fine had done so for the Federation of Community Legal report to support a special travelling on a concession ticket Centres (Victoria) and the Financial circumstances application. without evidence of a concession and Consumer Rights Council, On card on their person.14 track to fairer fares and fines – Public Concession arrangements transport position paper, 2016, p.20-21 Some stakeholders felt that A number of stakeholders greater leniency should be Representatives of vulnerable expressed concern during the afforded so that concession groups argued that the evidence consultation process that the card holders can present the needed to satisfy the definition conditions and application appropriate evidence of their of special circumstances can of travel concessions can be entitlement to a concessionary be overly rigid. confusing. Because of the fare within a specified timeframe complexities involved, it has been (eg, 28 days), and for this The current definition of claimed that retailers sometimes evidence to be provided special circumstances in sell the wrong type of concession by post, email or fax. the Infringements Act 2006 ticket to users, making them requires that a person’s special prone to enforcement action. Alternatively, it was suggested circumstances ‘resulted in’ them that registered myki card holders being unable to understand The PTO reported that a Youth should be provided with the or control the offending conduct. and Industry Roundtable she option of uploading proof Stakeholders consider this hosted in November 2015 of their concession entitlement requirement to be problematic highlighted that the conditions to a central database. Authorised and have argued that it and application of travel officers would be alerted creates the need to establish concessions appear to be to a concession entitlement an artificial nexus between a particularly problematic, leading by their handheld scanners person’s circumstances and to many penalty fares being when checking tickets, and/or the offending conduct. Rigid issued to young people. DEDJTR staff could be alerted evidentiary requirements to the entitlement at RONC attesting to this causal link can review stage. result in vulnerable people being excluded from a review based on special circumstances. Groups want the definition amended to ‘contributed to’.
14 PTUA, Fairer Fines Survey Report and Recommendations to the Review of Public Transport Fare Enforcement, February 2016, p.2. 54 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The infringement There also appears to be a lack In a written submission to the notice process of confidence among review, the PTO commented stakeholders that individual on the marked increase in In addition to the issues raised circumstances are taken into the number of complaints her about the impact on vulnerable account during the internal review office had received about the groups, stakeholders raised process. Many spoke about the fairness of the infringement other general concerns about ‘template-like’ letters sent to process, noting that going to the the processes supporting the those seeking an internal review, Magistrates’ Court to resolve infringement notice system. Two which has raised doubts whether any disputes is out of reach of key themes that emerged during individual circumstances have many. She cited the Productivity the consultation process were: been taken into account during Commission’s inquiry report into the review process. justice arrangements, which • the timeliness of the stated that: process; and Some stakeholders are calling for greater transparency about “Some individuals are deterred • the nature of internal reviews the factors that are taken into from pursuing action for fear when infringement notices account during internal reviews, that the process will prove too are appealed. and for greater benefit of the slow and costly. One third of individuals who chose not to act Some stakeholders expressed doubt to be given for claims on a substantial legal problem of inadvertent fare evasion, frustration about the lack of cited a belief that it would be too timeliness of the infringement particularly where a passenger costly as a reason for inaction. process, and suggested it was has a strong history of fare A similar proportion thought due to a lack of appropriate compliance. it would take too long.” resourcing within DEDJTR. Representatives from the Productivity Commission, Access In particular, stakeholders Magistrates’ Court highlighted to Justice Arrangements, Inquiry pointed to the long delays the importance of having a well- Report No.72, September 2014, p.10 between when authorised functioning internal review system officers issue a register of non- to allow for issues to be resolved Furthermore, the PTO compliance and when DEDJTR earlier in the process, and provide stated that: sends out an infringement an opportunity for special notice. Such delays can have “It would seem that many circumstances and mitigating implications where there are consumers feel the gap between circumstances to be properly disputes about whether an internal appeals process considered in cases to avoid a passenger has ‘touched on’ and the Infringements Court a burden being placed on is inherently deterring; which (ie, validated their myki card) the court system. They noted arguably it is intended to be. because CCTV evidence may that, even if a case gets to the However, this reinforces a power no longer be available. Magistrates’ Court and based approach to dispute is resolved on the day with resolution, rather than one which affords procedural fairness.” verdict of not guilty, it still consumes a lot of resources Public Transport Ombudsman, to book that court time. A review of penalty fare and infringement complaints to the Public Transport Ombudsman, 12 February 2016, p.1 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 55
Based on the experience This follows a similar The conduct of completing over 50 investigation completed by the and training of investigations into penalty fare Victorian Ombudsman in 2010, authorised officers cases, the PTO has developed which identified insufficient the following principles and training of authorised officers While the terms of reference criteria that could be useful in the use of discretion when for the review do not specifically in the context of conducting issuing infringement notices; cover the behaviour of internal reviews about inadequate oversight of the authorised officers,16 many infringements: authorisation of public transport stakeholders nevertheless raised officers and their subsequent issues about authorised officers • demonstrate that the compliance with conditions; and that are relevant to the review’s passenger’s side of the story insufficiencies in the internal consideration of the ticketing has been listened to; review of infringements issued enforcement regime. For • checking that passengers and case review outcomes example, authorised officers play have a positive myki balance conducted by the then an important role in: (or any top-up receipts); Department of Transport.15 • exercising discretion • reviewing the passenger’s In the case of the latter issue, in determining whether travel history (ie, does this the Victorian Ombudsman a passenger has committed show a regular history of determined that there was: an offence; and compliance?); “at best a cursory assessment • providing sufficient • checking myki reader of requests for review and information about the machine logs to see if they the lack of details recorded enforcement regime, were functioning at the time regarding the decision-making particularly to inform the of travel; process and reasoning. The passenger’s decision between accepting a penalty fare or • getting access to CCTV lack of detail provided in the a report of non-compliance footage in a timely manner. department’s review letters tend to give commuters the (thereby entering the In addition to the PTO, the impression that their individual infringements process). Victorian Ombudsman has circumstances have not been also taken an active interest considered and may influence in the public transport ticketing the number of matters referred enforcement process. In January to the Infringement Court.” 2016, the Victorian Ombudsman commenced an ‘own motion’ Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation into the issuing of infringement investigation into public notices to public transport users and transport fare enforcement related matters, December 2010, measures, with an emphasis on paragraph 20 assessing whether enforcement is fair and equitable.
16 Other processes are in train to address issues raised about the behaviour of authorised officers 15 Victorian Ombudsman, Investigation by the Victorian Ombudsman in into the issuing of infringement the Investigation into an incident notices to public transport users and of alleged excessive force used by related matters, December 2010. authorised officers, February 2015. 56 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
As stated by the PTO: The PTUA’s survey revealed The training of authorised that 32 per cent of those who officers was frequently raised “A significant proportion of opted for the penalty fare did during the consultations. consumers who complained so because they felt pressured Metro Trains provided details to us about penalty fares also by the authorised officer. Only 4 of recently-implemented complained about the authorised officers (AOs) with whom they per cent of those who accepted training initiatives to improve interacted. The behaviour of the penalty fare felt that the the quality of interactions AOs was the most significant authorised officer had explained between authorised officers and complaint, but consumers also the different options clearly.17 passengers, including the ‘It’s complained about receiving not worth it’ campaign, which misleading information and Some stakeholders recognised focuses on the de-escalation the inconsistent application of the challenging task of of confrontational situations. AO discretion. Consumers authorised officers, pointing out reported feeling ‘intimidated’ that the choices that authorised Nevertheless, there appears and ‘harassed’ by AOs.” officers currently need to offer to be a prevailing view that and communicate to passengers authorised officers should Public Transport Ombudsman, A review of penalty fare and at the time of interception are have more training, particularly infringement complaints to the Public complex. It was felt that making in customer service, and in Transport Ombudsman, 12 February the process and options at the identifying and understanding 2016, p.3 point of interception simpler the needs of vulnerable people. would allow authorised officers The PTO’s November 2015 Youth Meanwhile, the PTUA to interact more easily and and Industry Roundtable called submitted that: effectively with passengers, for greater recognition about “Many survey respondents made and would allow for better the different ways young complaints and comments customer service. people interact with people regarding the behaviour of with authority. Others expressed the view Authorised Officers, and their approach to passengers. Many that public transport users can Stakeholders, including the people felt officers were rude and feel intimidated by authorised Rail, Tram and Bus Union, also did not give consideration to the officers, perceptions which are highlighted the need for greater circumstances which may have heightened because authorised consistency in training, making led them not having a valid ticket, officers travel in groups and the observation that there and felt intimidated into paying wear ‘military-style’ uniforms. appears to be different rules the $75 fine. Additionally, people And there appears to be some and expectations for authorised felt intimidated by the group of confusion about the roles, officers, depending on who officers surrounding them when responsibilities and powers employs (and trains) them. they were being spoken to. Many of authorised officers. felt the experience deterred Yarra Trams also supported them from travelling on public the rollout of more training transport in the future.” modules, particularly those Public Transport Users Association, designed to assist authorised Fairer Fines Survey Report and officers in dealing with difficult Recommendations to the Review of interactions (eg, drug-affected Public Transport Fare Enforcement, transport users). Yarra Trams February 2016, p.5 also suggested other options to improve the safety culture, such as non-threatening uniforms and 17 PTUA, Fairer Fines Survey Report and carrying less bulky equipment. Recommendations to the Review of Public Transport Fare Enforcement, February 2016, p.3. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 57
Impact of changes to fares These issues are described policy and business rules in Table 6 on the next page. on the understanding of In addition, some stakeholders ticketing requirements felt there were insufficient The final major category of opportunities and locations issues raised by stakeholders for purchasing or adding value concerned the impact of to myki cards, particularly changes to fares policy and in some suburban areas. This business rules on the level can force some people to walk of understanding of, and long distances in order to obtain compliance with, ticketing a valid myki card. Other system requirements. issues where stakeholders suggested changes included: Many stakeholders contended that confusion about how • the handheld devices used the ticketing system works is by authorised officers needed contributing to inadvertent to be upgraded to speed non-compliance. This can be a up processing times, and particular problem for tourists provide more information and international students. that would facilitate more A number of system issues discretion in cases of and business rules were also inadvertent fare evasion or identified as causing inadvertent special circumstances; and fare evasion. Specific issues • the introduction of some raised included: kind of loyalty scheme being introduced to ‘reward’ • confusion about concession good behaviour in terms arrangements; of ticketing compliance. • inconsistencies and changes As well as encouraging in the rules for touching compliance, it was felt that on and off myki cards; this may help to counter some of the bad publicity • the impact of negative surrounding the ‘strict’ myki balances on the ticketing enforcement validity of tickets; measures, which may • the time taken for credit be deterring some people added to myki balances from using Victoria’s public to be recognised on the transport system, impacting system; and on the patronage of public transport, and on • confusion about the balance Melbourne’s reputation on a newly-purchased as a tourist destination. myki card. 58 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Table 6 Common sources of confusion about the ticketing system
Concession The arrangements around public transport concessions (and demonstrating entitlement arrangements 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/ When the myki system was first introduced, users were told that touching on and off touch off rules 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. 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 The myki card allows user to go into negative balance in order to complete a single modal balance 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 Delays between topping up myki cards online and the value appearing on the card top up myki can mean there are insufficient funds at the time of travel. balance 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 The cost of a new full fare myki card is $6. However, this fee does not include any travel balance entitlement. Value needs to be added to the card before travel can commence. Some included on a myki users think the initial fee includes an entitlement to travel. new myki card (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.) REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 59
ANALYTICAL In addition to incorporating efficiency, fairness and equity, ASSESSMENT the analytical framework also OF THE TICKETING considers general best practice COMPLIANCE AND regulatory principles, and key ENFORCEMENT characteristics of public transport REGIME compliance and enforcement policies in other jurisdictions and in other similar portfolio areas The overarching objective (such as parking and speeding of this review, as stated in the infringements). As illustrated by terms of reference, is to strike Figure 6, by assessing Victoria’s an appropriate balance between current ticketing compliance efficiency, fairness and equity. and enforcement regime against In order to meet this objective, this analytical framework, it is it is useful to understand what possible to identify areas for is meant by these terms – since improvement and reform. 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. 60 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Figure 6 Analytical assessment of the ticketing compliance and enforcement regime
Informed by: • Objectives and decision making principle contained in the Transport Integration Act 2010 • Principles that apply to Victoria’s broader system Analytical framework of Infringements, as outlined in the Attorney- General’s Guidelines to the Infringements Act 2006 Incorporating: • The Character of Human Rights and Responsibilities Efficiency • Characteristics of good regulatory systems, Fairness and equity including the OECD’s best practice principles for improving regulatory enforcement and inspections Best practice regulatory • Compliance and enforcement regimes for ticketing characteristics and principles in other jurisdictions, and other portfolio areas
Informed by: Assessment of current regime • Stakeholder feedback against analytical framework • Desktop review
Informed by: Identify areas for improvement • Any deficiencies, weakness and inconsistencies and reform identified in the assessment above REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 61
KEY ELEMENTS OF In the public transport sphere, Fairness and equity THE ANALYTICAL this means targeting users with a poor record of ticketing The perception of fairness FRAMEWORK compliance (ie, deliberate and and equity is crucial to the repeat fare evaders). credibility of compliance and The key elements of the analytical enforcement approaches. People framework that has been Another dimension of regulatory who consider the arrangements developed for this review are: efficiency is that the costs to be unfair may be more incurred in undertaking reluctant to comply, leading to • Is the compliance and compliance and enforcement non-compliance as a form of enforcement regime efficient? should be proportionate to the ‘protest’. Alternatively, they may • Is the regime fair and costs imposed by non-compliance be more inclined to take their equitable? of the regulation. For example, chances in court, adding to the any additional costs devoted to costs of the enforcement system. • What are the characteristics compliance and enforcement of best practice regulation, activities should not exceed the Some of the key aspects particularly in relation ‘gain’ in fare revenue from the of fairness and equity that to compliance and reduced fare evasion that results are relevant in the context enforcement? from that extra activity. of public transport ticketing are articulated in the following These elements are discussed A third aspect of efficiency legislation and guidelines: below. relates to the need to resort to the court system as part of the • the objectives and decision- Efficiency enforcement regime. Victoria’s making principles contained ticketing enforcement regime in the Transport Integration ‘Efficiency’ within the context sits under an overarching system Act 2010; of ticketing compliance and of infringements, set out in the enforcement can be measured • principles that apply to Infringements Act 2006, which in a number of different ways. Victoria’s broader system of is designed to deal with minor infringements, as contained While a high rate of fare offences without the need to in the Infringements Act 2006, compliance may indicate an proceed to court hearings and the Attorney-General’s efficient system, consideration (which can be costly and Guidelines to this Act;19 and needs to be given to the amount resource-intensive). An efficient of resources used to achieve enforcement regime would that level of compliance. Within therefore minimise the number a regulatory setting, priorities of court proceedings arising should be established to promote from ticketing infringements. an ‘efficient’ allocation of the Finally, any form of regulation available enforcement resources cannot be considered to so as to maximise the achieved be efficient if it is difficult level of compliance. This means to understand.18 that enforcement efforts should be focused on ‘high risk’ parties (ie, those most likely not to comply with the regulations).
18 Department of Treasury and Finance, 19 Department of Justice, Attorney- Victorian Guide to Regulation, General’s Guidelines to the December 2014, p.44. Infringements Act 2006. 62 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
• the Charter of Human Rights In recognising these The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. circumstances, agencies are and Responsibilities also reminded that the Act seeks to contains elements that are -- For example, the principle divert from the criminal justice relevant to the ‘fairness’ of of equity represents one system those who do not have ticketing enforcement. For of the decision-making the ability to understand the example, the charter provides principles of the Transport consequences of their actions, for rights to: Integration Act 2010,20 and or by virtue of their requires that people should circumstances or disability • recognition and equality are unlikely to be able to avoid not be disadvantaged before the law;21 on the basis of personal the commission of the offence. This aim should be specifically attributes including their • protection from torture considered by agencies when financial situation and and cruel, inhuman or applications involving special ability to pay, or on the degrading treatment – circumstances are being this includes protection basis of their location considered by review officers.” (eg, urban versus from treatment that 22 regional areas). Department of Justice, Attorney- humiliates a person; and General’s Guidelines to the 23 Meanwhile, the Infringements Infringements Act 2006, p.7 • a fair hearing. Act 2006 recognises that some Consistency and predictability people may not be able to The need to take individual of approach represent another control or understand their circumstances into account form of fairness. These attributes offending conduct because is consistent with the mean that those in the same of their ‘special circumstances’, administrative law principle circumstances are treated in the such as mental or intellectual that mitigates against inflexible same way under the enforcement disabilities, serious addition application of policy. It is regime, and there is certainty to certain substances, and permissible for administrative in the approaches taken. homelessness. As stated in the bodies and decision makers Attorney-General’s Guidelines to develop policies on how Best practice to this Act: they will exercise discretionary regulatory principles powers in particular cases, but “The recognition of ‘Special they cannot do so in a way that Circumstances’ in the The analytical framework also applies the policy without regard Infringements Act 2006 is to incorporates consideration of ensure that certain members of or apparent regard for the best practice general regulatory the community are not unfairly merits of the applicant’s case. principles, where they are relevant caught up in the infringement This means that policies can be to the ticketing compliance and system, through providing developed in respect of ticketing enforcement regime. flexibility in the system so that and enforcement matters, the special circumstances of but these policies cannot be individuals can be considered. administered in a way that closes off consideration of particular individual circumstances.
21 Section 8 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. 20 See section 17 of the Transport 22 Ibid, section 18. Integration Act 2010. 23 Ibid, section 24. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 63
With regulatory reform a key Subject to appeal: There should • Long-term vision: priority for governments, there be transparent and robust governments should adopt is a growing literature about best mechanisms to appeal against policies and institutional practice regulatory principles. decisions made by a regulatory mechanisms on regulatory For example, the Victorian Guide body that may have significant enforcement and inspections to Regulation, which is the whole- impacts on individuals. This with clear objectives and of-government definitive guide characteristic is also picked up a long-term road map; to the development of regulation as part of fairness considerations • Coordination and in Victoria, articulates a number – ie, the right to a fair hearing. consolidation: less duplication of key characteristics of good and overlaps will ensure regulatory systems.24 Of these In addition to these better use of public resources, characteristics, the following characteristics, the analytical minimise the burden on are particularly important in the framework also draws on best regulated subjects and assessment of the effectiveness practice principles developed maximise effectiveness; of Victoria’s ticketing compliance by the Organisation of Economic and enforcement approach: Co-operation and Development • Transparent governance: (OECD) for improving regulatory governance structures and 25 Transparency: The development enforcement and inspections. human resources policies and enforcement of government Although the OECD principles for regulatory enforcement regulation should be transparent have been formulated for the should support transparency, to the community and the purposes of the regulation professionalism and results- business sector. Transparency of entities rather than individuals, oriented management. can promote learning and the following principles have The execution of regulatory information sharing within the relevance in the context of public enforcement should be regulatory system to improve transport ticketing enforcement: independent from political the design, administration and influence, and compliance • Evidence-based enforcement: enforcement of regulation, and promotion efforts should deciding what to inspect, and can also help to build public be rewarded; trust in the quality of regulation how, should be based on data and the integrity of the process. and experience; • Information integration: information and Within the context of public • Risk focus and communications transport ticketing, this principle proportionality: the technology (ICT) should means that the rules for ticketing frequency of inspections, be used to maximise risk compliance should be clear and the resources employed, focus, coordination and to users, as should the processes should be proportional to the information sharing; surrounding the enforcement level of risk, and enforcement of these requirements. Ticketing actions should be aimed • Clear and fair process: compliance should be promoted at reducing actual risk governments should through the provision of public caused by infractions; ensure clarity of rules and information. process for enforcement and inspections: coherent legislation to organise inspections and enforcement needs to be adopted and clearly articulate the rights 25 Organisation for Economic Co- and obligations of officials operation and Development (OECD), 24 Department of Treasury and Finance, Regulatory Enforcement and and businesses; Victorian Guide to Regulation – Toolkit Inspections: OECD Best Practice 1: Purposes and types of regulation, Principles for Regulatory Policy, updated July 2014. May 2014. 64 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
• Compliance promotion: • Where ‘on-the-spot’ fines are ASSESSMENT transparency and compliance imposed in other jurisdictions OF THE CURRENT should be promoted through and portfolio areas, it is the use of appropriate common for partial upfront REGIME AGAINST instruments, such as guidance, payments to be accepted, THE ANALYTICAL toolkits and checklists; with the ability to pay the FRAMEWORK balance within a specified • Professionalism: inspectors timeframe. All other systems should be trained and Having established the analytical examined have well-defined managed to ensure framework, this section presents appeal rights and processes; professionalism, integrity, an evaluation of how the current consistency and transparency • The minimum fine for a arrangements for ticketing – training should include public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement in official guidelines for infringement is broadly similar Victoria measure up against the inspectors to help ensure within most jurisdiction within key elements of the framework. consistency and fairness. Australia, ranging from $200 This evaluation is based on to $235 (Western Australia is a desktop review and on the Features of other systems an outlier with a fine of $100); feedback and evidence provided To identify key characteristics of • The use of smartphone by stakeholders during the other similar approaches – and technology by enforcement consultation process. Particular to draw on any lessons learnt – in jurisdictions such as NSW attention has been paid to an the review team has undertaken has resulted in improved assessment of the penalty fare research into public transport transaction times; scheme as it has been a key focus of the review. compliance and enforcement • The processes for speeding arrangements in other and parking infringements The results of the evaluation are jurisdictions (in Australia and within Victoria include public presented in two stages: overseas), and in other portfolio guidelines that detail the areas (such as parking and circumstances under which • the first stage assesses speeding infringements). This a review of an infringement current arrangements in research is detailed in Appendix notice may be undertaken. terms of their efficiency and A of this report. In the case of speeding fairness/equity; while infringements, information The key findings from this • the alignment of Victoria’s is also provided about the research, which are taken ticketing compliance and factors taken into account into account in the analytical enforcement regime with when considering whether assessment, are: best practice regulatory to replace an infringement techniques and other similar • The public transport ticketing notice with an official warning systems is examined in the compliance regimes of other in the cases of minor offences second stage. jurisdictions are based on (These factors include a a single-tier enforcement good driving record and system, with the use of the absence of any other official warnings under some speeding or safety-related circumstances in lieu of a infringements in the previous financial penalty; two years). REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 65
Results of assessment: Fare evaders can accrue multiple Fairness and equity efficiency and $75 penalty fares. By offering There are a number of aspects fairness/equity a lower alternative to the $223 infringement fine, the penalty of the current ticketing Efficiency fare improves the economic enforcement regime that appear rationale for fare evading for to be inconsistent with objectives Because it is a streamlined those ‘gaming’ the system. of fairness. The main ones are process (eg, no personal summarised below: details have to be provided Large numbers of infringement and transactions are card- cases are proceeding to court • The two-tier enforcement based), the penalty fare scheme with close to 5,000 ticketing system appears to be speeds up the interactions of matters prosecuted in 2014- inequitable. Low income authorised officers, allowing 15 (around 3 per cent of groups are less likely to be for more tickets to be checked. total infringements issued). able to pay an upfront $75 This effectively increases the In particular, infringements penalty fare than those on level of enforcement activity. involving persons with special higher incomes, nor are This, combined with presence circumstances they likely to have access of more multi-modal authorised are ending up in the court to credit/debit cards which officers on the public transport system, with little prospect of are necessary to access the network, is a contributing factor recouping unpaid fines. This penalty fare option. Instead to higher ticketing compliance suggests a lack of efficiency in of accepting the $75 penalty, rates. Indeed, as detailed in Part terms of keeping minor offences the only route open to them is A, the current arrangements away from the criminal justice the infringement system, with have resulted in record high system, which is one of the the much higher minimum levels of fare compliance. This, in main aims of the overarching fine of $223. This leads to a turn, helps to boost fare revenue, infringements framework. situation where those with which contributes to the funding less capacity to pay incur of the public transport network. The increasing complexity of a greater penalty than current ticketing arrangements those on higher incomes for Current enforcement activity (including concessionary fares), committing the same offence; does not appear to be targeted as highlighted by stakeholders • Furthermore, low income towards ‘high risk’ fare evaders during the review’s consultation and vulnerable groups may – ie, repeat offenders. In fact, the process, suggests a lack of not tend to have the time, anonymous nature of the penalty efficiency in terms of the ability resources and cognitive fare scheme means that it is not of transport users to understand abilities to appeal an possible to identify recidivist their obligations. infringement notice; fare evaders. It could be argued that the penalty fare scheme encourages fare evasion by deliberate evaders. 66 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
• Because penalty fares • Evidence provided by Results of assessment: are not offered on V/Line representatives of those alignment with best services, the enforcement with special circumstances practice regulatory system appears to appear suggests that many techniques and other to discriminate against vulnerable people are getting similar systems transport users in regional ‘trapped’ in the infringement areas (which is inconsistent system, and not given the Table 6 assesses the current with the principle of equity appropriate recognition that ticketing compliance and as it relates to location, as they are entitled to under the enforcement arrangements in articulated in section 17 of Infringements Act 2006; Victoria against the regulatory the Transport Integration • While the well-established characteristics and principles Act 2010). Those caught fare infringement system appears outlined in section previously. evading in regional areas do to adhere to the principle of not have access to the same Meanwhile, the research into procedural fairness through $75 penalty option as those approaches used elsewhere the internal review process, travelling on the metropolitan highlights a number of issues the penalty fare scheme’s public transport network; of particular interest to this procedural fairness is more review – including: • It could be argued that, questionable given the lack of because the penalty fare formal appeal rights (ie, there • Victoria is highly unusual scheme has an eligibility is only an ability to complain in having a two-tier criterion (ie, the ability to pay to PTV or the Public Transport enforcement approach by debit or credit card), it Ombudsman). (ie, a choice between does not satisfy section 8 of a penalty fare or entering the Charter of Human Rights an infringement process); and Responsibilities Act 2006, • the use of new technology which provides the right to can streamline enforcement recognition and equality; 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). REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 67
Table 7 Assessment of how Victoria’s public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement regime adheres to best practice characteristics and principles
Characteristic/ Assessment principle
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 Data on where and when fare evasion takes place can be used to target the activities enforcement 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 Within the context of public transport ticketing, this principle implies that enforcement proportionality efforts should be targeted on those offenders who are intentionally fare evading on 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).
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 Arguably, the current two tier approach (with PTV responsible for the penalty fare consolidation 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. 68 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Characteristic/ Assessment principle
Information The handheld devices currently used by authorised officers have limited integration 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 There are various sources of information about the rules and processes for ticketing enforcement enforcement – feedback from stakeholders suggests that this information is not process 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 While there appears to be plenty of guidance material available, its usefulness may promotion 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 69
CONCLUSION: • The current enforcement • Large numbers of people with IDENTIFYING regime is not targeted special circumstances are not towards ‘high risk’ fare being identified early enough OPPORTUNITIES evaders – ie, those who in the infringement process, FOR IMPROVEMENT deliberately and repeatedly with many cases ending up in AND REFORM cheat the system. If anything, the court system, despite the the introduction of the intention of the legislation to The assessment of the current penalty fare scheme has divert this cohort away from arrangements against the benefitted recidivist fare the criminal justice system. evaders because they can analytical framework has • There seems to be room for remain anonymous, and identified a number greater transparency about they can pay a ‘discount’ $75 of deficiencies, weaknesses Victoria’s enforcement regime rather than the alternative and inconsistencies, which – for example, in relation to infringement fine of $223. allows identification of areas the factors that may be taken This effectively increases to improve the ticketing into account when internal the ‘attractiveness’ of fare compliance and enforcement reviews of infringement evasion to this group of users. regime, and highlights the key notices are undertaken. priorities for reform. • Some of those not complying Having identified the key areas The primary conclusions from with ticketing requirements do so inadvertently, because for improvement, Part C of this the analytical assessment are report focuses on opportunities as follows: of myki system issues and/or because of the increasingly for reform. • While the introduction of the complex nature of ticketing penalty fare scheme has arrangements (including streamlined enforcement the appropriate forms of activities, which has identification to be produced contributed to record to prove entitlement to high compliance rates, it a concessionary fare). has also undermined the These transport users are fairness of the enforcement nevertheless getting caught regime. The scheme is not up in the enforcement system. 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. PART C OPPORTUNITIES FOR REFORM REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 71
DEVELOPING “require and regulate the use • contains the principle of tickets for Victoria’s public of the transport system A FAIRER POLICY transport system with the user perspective, which FRAMEWORK intention of supporting the includes understanding the collection of revenue for that requirements of transport system and reducing fare evasion system users, including their and the consequential revenue THE NEED FOR A information needs.28 This losses incurred by public transport POLICY FRAMEWORK operators and the State.” principle is relevant to the public transport ticketing The overarching objective of this Regulation 1(a) of Transport compliance strategy. (Ticketing) Regulations 2006 review is to strike an appropriate Meanwhile, the framework balance between efficiency However, goals around fairness, established by the Infringements and fairness in the compliance equity and social considerations Act 2006 also includes elements and enforcement of public are contained in ‘umbrella’ of fairness for example, through transport ticketing, and one legislation that is relevant provisions for persons with of the initial areas of focus to ticketing compliance and special circumstances, and of the review has been to enforcement, such as the procedural fairness through establish a policy framework Transport Integration Act 2010 the requirement for an internal to meet this overarching goal. and the Infringements Act 2006. review process. As discussed in Part A, there are The Transport Integration Act While the existing legislation various pieces of legislation that 2010 sets out overarching framework appears to are relevant to public transport objectives and decision-making accommodate the pursuit of ticketing compliance and principles that sit above all both efficiency (in terms of fare enforcement. However, transport laws, policies and revenue protection) and fairness/ there is currently no single decision-making bodies. This Act: equity objectives, there is merit in document or statement that developing a clear statement of articulates the government’s • includes equity as a decision- the government’s policy priorities priorities, particularly in terms making principles in the Act, as far as ticketing compliance of balancing efficiency and and seeks to ensure fairness and enforcement are concerned fairness objectives. regardless of personal to guide the appropriate attributes, such as physical The only direct legislative balance between the different ability, financial situation objective in relation to ticketing objectives. Such a statement and location; 26 is contained in the Transport would improve certainty and the (Ticketing) Regulations 2006, • requires that the transport consistency of decisions made which has a clear focus on the system should provide at the administrative level about collection of fare revenue to “tailored infrastructure, the level of discretion that should support the public transport services and support for be exercised in dealing with system, without any specific persons who find it difficult cases of non-compliance. This reference to issues of fairness to use the transport system”.27 should contribute to improved in the pursuit of fare recovery. This arguably covers perceptions of fairness about The regulations: enforcement action towards the enforcement system. some users with special circumstances;
26 See section 17 of the Transport Integration Act 2010. 27 Ibid, section 8(b). 28 Ibid, section 18(a). 72 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
WHAT SHOULD THE • Many non-compliers As envisaged in the objectives POLICY FRAMEWORK are getting caught up in of the Transport (Ticketing) the enforcement system Regulations 2006, the collection AIM TO ACHIEVE? inadvertently because of of fare revenue remains their lack of understanding paramount to the ticketing This review has identified of ticketing arrangements. compliance and enforcement a number of issues and regime. For every dollar lost • There are widespread considerations that are relevant to fare evasion, the size of the concerns about the number to the development of a policy taxpayer-funded subsidy needed of persons with special framework surrounding ticketing to support the annual operating circumstances who become compliance and enforcement. cost of the public transport ‘trapped’ in the infringement In particular: system increases. system, often ending up in the • Research on the psychology criminal justice system. While protecting fare revenue of fare evasion has • There is lack of confidence should remain the primary aim concluded that ticketing that individual circumstances of ticketing policy, this review has enforcement regimes are appropriately considered identified the following features should be targeted towards at all times during the internal that could be incorporated in ‘high risk’ fare evaders – review process. In part, this the policy framework to ensure ie, those who deliberately reflects the absence of clear a better balance between and repeatedly cheat the information about the factors efficiency and fairness in ticketing system and account for a that are taken into account compliance and enforcement: high proportion of the total during these appeals. fare revenue lost through fare evasion. This work also • While the introduction of the suggests that more leniency penalty fare scheme has should be shown towards streamlined enforcement accidental, inadvertent activities – allowing non-compliance, which authorised officers to check tends to be one-off in nature more tickets, it has also (and only results in modest undermined the fairness and losses in fare revenue). Such equity of the enforcement an enforcement regime regime. For example, the would also be consistent lack of formal appeal rights with regulatory best under the scheme appears practice, which dictates contrary to principles of that enforcement effort procedural fairness, and the should be proportional to the scheme cannot be accessed seriousness of the violation. 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 73
Focusing enforcement activity A number of changes to TOWARDS GREATER towards the greater targeting operational arrangements TRANSPARENCY of deliberate and recidivist fare are needed to support a move evaders, with more embedded towards this ‘fairer’, policy and systematic discretion framework, including: In moving to a fairer compliance to exercise leniency (in the form and enforcement system, it of official warnings, rather than • changes to the existing two- is recommended that the the issuing of fines) in certain tier enforcement approach government provides greater cases of inadvertent non- (which comprises the penalty transparency about how it intends compliance (eg, only issued fare scheme and the well- to balance efficiency and fairness to those with good myki established infringement objectives. As outlined in Chapter balances, strong records of process); 6, such transparency would be consistent with general best compliance, and/or special • modifications to myki practice regulatory principles. or exceptional circumstances.29 arrangements to make the ticketing system easier to use • Facilitating the exercise of While the remaking of the and understand, and other more discretion at the ‘front Transport (Ticketing) Regulations system improvements; end’ of the process (ie, by the 2006 represents one opportunity DEDJTR issuing officer) to • changes to the administration to do this, a more expeditious reduce the number of people of the infringements and accessible approach would that are unjustifiably caught system (including earlier be to prepare and publish a up in the infringement system, identification of those public statement detailing the including those persons with persons with special government’s compliance and special circumstances. circumstances); and enforcement strategy for public transport ticketing. • Recognising the need to • measures to improve make it easier for transport training and support for Such public statements are used users to comply with ticketing authorised officers. by other Victorian bodies with regulations – this may be enforcement powers, including achieved by promoting These operational measures WorkSafe, the Environment measures to facilitate are examined in Chapter 8. Protection Authority, Transport compliance, such as better Safety Victoria, and the Taxi customer information Services Commission. Meanwhile, to improve understanding authorities in some other of the ticketing system, jurisdictions publish details of and modifications to the their public transport ticketing myki system to help enforcement strategies, mitigate inadvertent with the NSW Office of State non-compliance. Revenue30 and Transport for London31 releasing particularly comprehensive documents.
29 Note: a system of official warnings is already in place and has been 30 NSW Office of State Revenue, State increasingly utilised by DEDJTR in Debt Recovery – Review Guidelines, recent months. This process would February 2016. become more embedded and 31 Transport for London, Revenue systematic under Enforcement and Prosecutions Policy, the proposed approach. March 2016. 74 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The information in this statement In the case of the proposed In order to achieve the could build on the information framework for ticketing, such a appropriate degree of that is currently included in pyramid would look like Figure 7. transparency, it is insightful to PTV’s annual Network Revenue look at guidelines published by Protection Plans. The statement Typical best practice principles public transport enforcement could be made available on the that are relevant within the authorities in other jurisdictions. websites of PTV and DEDJTR, and context of the Victorian sent to all those who are issued Government’s public transport In New South Wales, for example, with an infringement notice. ticketing enforcement, and review guidelines released by the which could be articulated in NSW Office of State Revenue list In line with other published the statement, include that the the circumstances that are taken compliance and enforcement enforcement strategy is: into account when reviewing strategies in other portfolio areas, public transport offences, and it is proposed that the statement • targeted – enforcement outline the evidence that needs should include details of: efforts are targeted towards to be provided in support of a deliberate and recidivist review. Among the circumstances • the various pieces of fare evaders; that may be taken into account legislation, associated • proportionate – enforcement during a review are: regulations, conditions, and activity is proportionate other requirements that are • inability to purchase a ticket to the seriousness of the relevant to the compliance because the ticket selling non-compliance; and enforcement of public window was closed, and no transport ticketing in Victoria • consistent – a consistent other alternate ticket vending approach is undertaken machine was reasonably • the importance of fare in similar situations/ available; compliance to the public circumstances to achieve transport system, and the • inability to purchase or consistent outcomes; and key aims of compliance and process a ticket because enforcement activities; • fair and reasonable – of faulty equipment; and the government seeks • measures to facilitate • history of compliance – to strike a balance between compliance with ticketing ie, a demonstrated good assisting compliance and regulations; record of regularly paying undertaking enforcement fares on public transport, • enforcement approaches; action. It may be appropriate without a fine or caution to exercise leniency in • key principles underpinning in the last three years. some circumstances the enforcement strategy; and of non-compliance. The statement could also • the internal review process. include details of the evidence In providing details about the required to support the grounds A common feature of statements internal review process under of special circumstances under of compliance and enforcement the infringements system, the the internal review process. Such strategies in other sectors is the statement could include the information is already included use of a ‘pyramid’ to illustrate factors that may be taken account in guidelines established by the the main focus on facilitating when reviews are undertaken. City of Melbourne and could be compliance, with forms of However, it is recognised that adopted by DEDJTR as part of sanctions for non-compliance full transparency may not be the approach for dealing with that escalate in severity as part appropriate because it could review applications based on of enforcement activities. lead to ‘gaming’ and abuse special circumstances. of the internal review process. Figure 7The enforcement compliance and proposed ‘pyramid’ for transport public ticketing non-compliance Severity of REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT MARKETING ANDEDUCATION CAMPAIGNS MEASURES TO COVER COMPLIANCE OFFICIAL WARNINGS PROSECUTIONS FINES
Compliance Enforcement Activities Activities 75 76 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
SUMMARY OF POLICY-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS
The policy-related reforms recommended by the review are presented below.
Box 8 -- facilitating the exercise -- the various pieces of Recommendations – policy of more discretion at the legislation associated ‘front end’ of the process regulations, conditions, It is recommended that: (ie, by the DEDJTR issuing and other requirements officer) to reduce the that are relevant to 1. While protecting fare number of people that the compliance and revenue should remain the are unjustifiably caught enforcement of public primary aim of ticketing up in the infringement transport ticketing policy, the Government system; in Victoria should adopt a policy framework that ensures -- recognising the need -- the importance of fare a better balance between to make it easier for compliance to the public efficiency and fairness transport users to transport system, and the in ticketing compliance comply with ticketing key aims of compliance and enforcement by: regulations – for example, and enforcement by promoting measures activities; -- focusing enforcement to facilitate compliance, -- measures to facilitate activity towards the such as better customer compliance with ticketing greater targeting of information to improve regulations; deliberate and recidivist understanding of the fare evaders, with ticketing system, and -- enforcement approaches; more embedded and modifications to the -- key principles systematic discretion myki system to mitigate underpinning the to exercise leniency inadvertent non- enforcement (in the form of official compliance. strategy; and warnings, rather than the 2. A public statement be issuing of fines) in cases -- the internal review released articulating of inadvertent non- process, including the the government’s public compliance; factors that may be transport ticketing taken into account when compliance and deciding whether enforcement strategy, which to exercise discretion. should include details about: REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 77
OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO To address the problems that THE TWO-TIER have been identified, the review REFORMS has compared the existing ENFORCEMENT arrangements with the following To support the policy framework APPROACH four options for change: proposed, a number of changes to operational arrangements will The on-the-spot penalty fare • Option 1 – ‘Fairer’ penalty be required. These changes are scheme – including its interaction fares: maintaining the current discussed in this section under with the well-established two-tier arrangements, but the following four headings: infringement system to effectively making the penalty fare create a two-tier enforcement ‘fairer’ by allowing it to be • options to change the two- approach – has been a key area paid on the spot or within tier enforcement approach of focus for this review. 28 days, and publicising the – which currently comprises ability to make a complaint the on-the-spot penalty By streamlining the operations to PTV or the Public fare scheme and the of authorised officers, the Transport Ombudsman. well-established ticketing penalty fare scheme has allowed • Option 2 – Return to the infringement system; more tickets to be checked, old system: removing the which has arguably been • ticketing and other system penalty fare scheme and a factor behind fare compliance improvements – which have returning to the single tier, rates reaching record levels in been identified to improve well-established infringement recent years. However, feedback compliance with ticketing system (ie, minimum from many stakeholders and requirements; infringement fine of $223, with an examination of the penalty the right to appeal through • modifications to the fare scheme against the review’s the internal review process). infringement system, analytical framework has raised including the way that the a number of concerns about • Option 3 – New system, low system deals with people with the fairness of the scheme – fine:removing the penalty special circumstances; and particularly in terms of equity fare scheme, issuing warning • measures to improve (ie, not everyone can access the letters for non-compliance training and support for $75 penalty fare) and procedural under specific conditions authorised officers. fairness (ie, there is no right where reasonable steps have to an internal review, and the been taken, $75 minimum The review’s recommendations complaints procedure is not infringement fine, with the in each of these areas are well known). Meanwhile, despite right to appeal through the summarised in text boxes at the the provision of information internal review process.32 end of the relevant sections. by authorised officers, many public transport users report they do not feel confident they can make an informed choice 32 Note: a system of official warnings on the spot about the alternative is already in place, and has been approaches under the two-tier increasingly used by DEDJTR in enforcement regime. recent months. This process would become more embedded and systematic under this option. 78 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
• Option 4 – New system, • be fairer to those who are compliance-based: removing inadvertently non-compliant Box 9 Recommendation – the penalty fare scheme, with ticketing requirements, operational approach issuing warning letters for through the embedded and to enforcement non-compliance under systematic use of discretion specific conditions (see to exercise leniency (in the It is recommended that: below), $223 minimum fine, form of official warnings, 3. The existing two-tier with the right to appeal rather than the issuing of fine) enforcement approach through the internal review under specific conditions (eg, be replaced by a new process. Such an approach only issued to those with good single-tier compliance- is consistent with models myki balances, strong records based system, based on adopted in other jurisdictions. of compliance, and/or those a similar model adopted with special or exceptional After examining the strengths in other jurisdictions. circumstances); and and weaknesses, the review Implementing this new considers that implementation • provide a stronger deterrent model will involve: of option 4 is the best approach to deliberate fare evaders by -- removing the on- to achieve the objectives of the removing the ability to remain the-spot penalty proposed policy framework, anonymous and removing fare scheme; which is designed to provide access to a ‘discounted’ a better balance between penalty fare. -- embedding the efficiency and fairness. systematic use of The implementation of option official warning letters In particular, this option will: 4 is also consistent with a for non-compliance, best practice, risk-based • remove the inequities of the under specific enforcement strategy – and with conditions; and current penalty fare scheme; the main findings of the work • result in a single tier on psychology of fare evasion – -- retaining the existing infringement system, which which suggest that enforcement and well-established should be less complex to activity should be targeted infringement system, administer and less confusing towards recidivist offenders. with a minimum $223 for public transport users; This model also shares some key fine and the right characteristics of approaches to appeal through • allow for improved procedural adopted in other jurisdictions, the internal review fairness through the internal including New South Wales, process. review process, which would Queensland, South Australia be available to all offenders; 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). REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 79
TICKETING AND • lack of awareness about Improved opportunities for OTHER SYSTEM the availability of the free purchasing and topping up myki Access Travel Pass for cards should also contribute IMPROVEMENTS certain vulnerable groups to higher compliance rates. (see Box 7), and other forms Delays between topping up Making the ticketing system of emergency travel ticket online and the credit appearing easy to use and understand options. on the myki balance have now is critical to achieving high rates been substantially reduced These are particularly complex of ticketing compliance, as is the recently from 24 hours to areas and further work is implementation of measures around 90 minutes. designed to promote desired required to identify opportunities behaviours by transport users. for reform. There is growing awareness and application by governments Another frustration that was The review has identified a sound the world of ‘nudge highlighted during the review’s number of issues with the myki theory’ to encourage desired consultation process is the system that represent common behaviours. Nudge theory is a current ability to go into negative sources of confusion among concept in behavioural science, balance on a myki card in order public transport users, and which political theory and economics to complete a single modal trip, may contribute to inadvertent that argues that positive but for the myki card to become non-compliance. These include reinforcement and indirect invalid if a second trip is taken. the rules regarding touching suggestions aimed at achieving The ability to go into negative on and off, which have become ‘non-forced’ compliance balance also encourages increasingly complex following can influence the motives, some undesirable behaviour the introduction of the free incentives and decision making because some users may incur tram zone in Melbourne’s CBD of groups and individuals, at a large negative balance upon and recent changes to zone least as effectively – if not completing a journey, whereupon 1+2 arrangements (see Table 6 more effectively – than direct it becomes cheaper to purchase on page 58). Efforts to improve instruction, legislation, a new myki card rather than awareness of the rules, along or enforcement. with the roll-out of more ‘next restore a positive balance on the generation’ myki devices (which original card. To address these The review considers merit give a clearer indication of issues, the review recommends in exploring the potential to whether a myki card has been that the myki system software apply nudge theory techniques touched on) are recommended. be changed to remove the ability to improve public transport to go into negative balance. ticketing compliance. This Other sources of common might include the introduction The inclusion of a day’s travel confusion appear to be: of initiatives to recognise and on a new myki card would also reward good compliance • concession arrangements, remove a common source by public transport users. including the appropriate of confusion (ie, that a newly forms of identification needed purchased myki card is valid for Box 10 summarises the to demonstrate entitlement travel when, in fact, a positive review’s recommendations to concessionary travel; and myki balance is required). to improve ticketing and system arrangements in order to improve compliance rates. 80 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Box 10 Recommendations 7. The initial charge for a new 11. A review be undertaken – ticketing and system myki card should include of emergency relief ticket improvements sufficient balance for travel product options. across zone 1+2. It is recommended that: 12. The development of a loyalty 8. The ability of the myki and reward program be 4. Further education about system to process online explored to recognise good ‘touch on/touch off’ be top-ups within 90 minutes compliance behaviour by addressed through an should be promoted. public transport users. improved information/ education campaign. 9. More purchase and top-up opportunities for myki cards 5. The roll-out of next be explored. generation myki devices continue. 10. A review be undertaken of the arrangements for 6. The ability to go into concessions (including negative balance on myki concession identification be removed. arrangements). REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 81
MODIFICATIONS TO This can lead to many months Another method to address THE INFRINGEMENTS of uncertainty to users about the current uncertainty that is whether a fine will ultimately be being caused by the delays in SYSTEM issued or whether the matter has sending out infringement notices been closed (particularly since is to clarify and communicate A number of operational changes no communication is entered (for example, via the DEDJTR to the infringements system into if the Department decides website) the maximum time would be required to support the not to issue an infringement between receiving a report of proposed new policy framework. notice after considering a report non-compliance and when an These are grouped under the of non-compliance). infringement notice is likely to be following categories: issued. This timeframe may be One way to address this changed depending on the level • improved processing problem is by assessing the of available resourcing vis-à-vis arrangements; appropriate resourcing and the number of reports/notices • more embedded processes capability of the infringements to be assessed and processed. for exercising discretion; division of DEDJTR. More embedded • measures to reduce the The review notes that the impact of the infringement government is considering processes for the system on people with special proposals to transfer the exercising of discretion circumstances; electronic processing of public The proposed policy framework transport infringement fines • better targeting of repeat envisages the discretion to has been issued by DEDJTR to offenders; and exercise more leniency (in Fines Victoria, an administrative the form of official warnings, • an assessment of the body within the Department of rather than the issuing of fines) resourcing of the infringement Justice and Regulation, which in appropriate cases of non- functions. is currently responsible for compliance under specified processing infringements in -- These categories are circumstances. relation to speeding fines, red discussed, in turn, in the light fines and toll fines. following sections. The current legislation already contains ‘defences’ to ticketing The review supports this Improved processing offences where reasonable steps proposed transfer and also have been taken to comply.33 arrangements notes that the centralisation of These steps include carrying infringement fine processing A number of stakeholders a myki card which has a sufficient within a single entity should raised concerns about long balance to travel, touching paint a more complete picture delays between a transport on before travel, and, where of an individual’s infringement user being issued with a report relevant, carrying evidence of history and debts to guide case of non-compliance by an an entitlement to concessionary management and debt recovery. authorised officer, and when travel. (The legislation specifically an infringement notice is The need to improve the states that not leaving sufficient subsequently issued by DEDJTR. timeliness of issuing infringement time to undertake these steps notices should also be viewed as is not a defence again a ticketing 34 a key objective of an assessment offence. ) of the resourcing and capability of DEDJTR’s infringements function (see page 84).
33 See regulations 12 and 13 of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006. 34 Regulation 14 of the Transport (Ticketing) Regulations 2006. 82 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The review notes that, since late • apparently taken appropriate Such an approach is beyond the 2015, DEDJTR has exercised care to travel with a valid ticket; terms of reference for this review greater discretion and issued to consider in detail, suffice to • not received an official more official warning letters note that: warning or fine for another where it has been satisfied that ticketing offence in the last exceptional circumstances exist35 • there would likely be three years. and where non-compliance significant costs involved in implementing this option, both is inadvertent. For example, In keeping with similar processes in terms of the revenue lost to holders of eligible primary and in other jurisdictions and other the public transport system secondary student concession portfolio areas, the onus would (which would require a greater cards who are detected travelling be on the transport user to taxpayer-funded subsidy and/ on a concession ticket but are not provide DEDJTR with sufficient or an increase in fares paid by carrying their concession card evidence to support a case for other transport users), and the are issued with an infringement leniency due to exceptional costs of administration; and notice, but this notice may be circumstances. cancelled and/or replaced • there is already an Access with a warning on appeal if Measures to reduce the Travel Pass scheme for it is the person’s first penalty impact of the infringement some vulnerable groups for this offence and they can system on persons with and, this may currently be subsequently send proof of their special circumstances underutilised because concession entitlement. of lack of awareness. As detailed in Part B, during The review believes that there Other approaches to improve the review’s public consultation is room for the exercise of the ways that people with special process, a number of social discretion to become more circumstances are treated by justice groups highlighted the embedded and systematic, and the ticketing compliance and disproportionate impact that that this would be facilitated enforcement regime include: the ticketing infringements by the adoption of transparent system has on persons with guidelines about the factors • better training for authorised special circumstances (such as that may be taken into account officers so that they can mental or intellectual disability, by DEDJTR in an internal review recognise genuine cases homelessness, serious addiction before deciding whether to of people with special to drugs or alcohol). exercise leniency. Such factors circumstances, and apply more discretion before taking could include whether the person To prevent such persons from enforcement action; committing the offence has: entering the infringement system in the first place, there have been • better identification of special • a demonstrated history of calls for free public transport circumstances by DEDJTR ticketing compliance; for vulnerable groups. Some during the infringement • a positive balance on their stakeholder groups are also notice process, and relaxing myki card at the time of seeking free public transport for the evidentiary requirements interception; young people. to trigger the special circumstances provisions in the infringements process; and
35 Exceptional circumstances’ are not defined in the legislation, but may include emergencies, sickness, traumatic events, and events outside the control of transport users. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 83
• the introduction of non- • provide a guidance framework • guidelines about the timing of financial options for for enforcement agencies evidence (eg, a practitioner’s vulnerable groups to expiate in dealing with special report will be regarded as any unpaid infringement fines. circumstances internal review current if dated within applications to promote 12 months of the date of The training of authorised transparency and consistency the applicant’s request for officers is discussed in more in decision making; internal review); and detail further on. • afford consideration to • the nature of any requests The review notes that the common difficulties by the enforcement agency there is already guidance experienced by people with for any further information material available to better special circumstances; and to establish special identify persons with special circumstances. circumstances. The City of • outline the information Melbourne, in conjunction with required to be submitted The City of Melbourne’s model the United Nations Global for an application to be operating policy is available Compact Cities Programme, considered in full. for download at http://ptv.vic. convened a working group gov.au/news-and-events/news/ It seeks to encourage consistent (comprising other enforcement public-transport-fare-evasion- processes and provide greater agencies, the then Department at-lowest-level-on-record/ clarity about acceptable evidence, of Justice, the Magistrates’ but acknowledges that matters Court, community lawyers The review agrees with still need to be considered on a and financial counsellors) to submissions made by social case-by-case basis. create an operating policy justice groups during the consultation process that the for enforcement agencies to The model operating policy adoption by DEDJTR of the City use when internally reviewing contains: a special circumstances of Melbourne’s model operating application. However, this • guiding questions to be asked policy would assist with the operating policy has not yet been during the internal review earlier identification of persons adopted by DEDJTR. decision-making process with special circumstances, to help determine whether diverting them away from the The overarching objective of the special circumstances apply; criminal justice system. model operating policy is to: • a description of the • improve the internal review acceptable evidence to process for people with confirm the existence of a special circumstances; relevant condition and linking that condition to the conduct; • assist enforcement agencies with their legal responsibilities • the appropriate information under the Infringements Act to be included in a 2006 and the requirements practitioner’s evidence; of procedural fairness; 84 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Victoria’s overarching • the improved ‘triaging’ Assessment of the infringements framework of infringements will allow resourcing of the is changing, which will have DEDJTR’s resources to focus infringement functions implications for ticketing on deliberate and repeat infringements. Proposed offenders, particularly The recommended removal amendments to the Fines in terms of prosecution. of the penalty fare scheme will Reforms Act 2014 and mean that ticketing offences Nevertheless, further work Infringements Act 2006 will will be enforced through the is warranted to look at other introduce a new work and infringement system. This will measures designed to target development permit scheme, likely increase the burden on recidivist fare evaders. which will provide vulnerable the business unit within DEDJTR and disadvantaged Victorians One option is to introduce that is responsible for the with unpaid infringement a system of escalating administration and processing fines with alternative options penalties for repeat offenders. of infringements, undertaking to expiate infringement debt. The broader infringements internal reviews, conducting These non-financial options framework (established under investigations and pursuing include participating in unpaid the Infringements Act 2006) prosecutions through the work, undertaking educational, limits the ability to impose court system. In addition, vocational or life skills courses, escalating fines for second and increased exercising of undergoing mental health subsequent ticketing offences discretion is recommended. or medical treatment, within specified rolling periods. receiving financial or other This will clearly have resource forms of counselling. However, there may be other implications. An assessment ways to develop a scheme that is required to take into account Better targeting deals with recidivist fare evaders. the following: For example, the Transport of repeat offenders • the transfer of responsibilities (Compliance and Miscellaneous) for infringement fine revenue One of the primary features of Act 1983 could be amended to collection from DEDJTR to the proposed policy framework add higher penalties for the Fines Victoria; is the targeting of recidivist fare second and subsequent offences evaders under the enforcement committed by recidivist fare • the need to improve the regime. This targeting will be evaders. Alternatively, it is worth timeliness of when an facilitated by: exploring whether there are infringement notice is issued any other higher level offences following a report of non- • the removal of the penalty under other existing legislation compliance being made by fare scheme – its anonymous that could be used to deal with an authorised officer; nature means that repeat this cohort. For example, in the offenders are not currently UK, the Fraud Act 2006 may identified. They also ‘benefit’ be applied to deal with serious from having access to a and systematic fare evasion or discounted penalty (ie, $75 revenue fraud on Transport for compared with the minimum London services.36 $223 under the infringement system); and
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 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 85
• the new policy framework envisages improved triaging Box 11 Recommendations – modifications to the of infringements, which infringements system will require the embedded and systematic exercising It is recommended that: of discretion in cases of 13. Support be given to the transfer of electronic infringement inadvertent ticketing non- processing (ie, the collection of fine revenue) to the compliance that occurs in Department of Justice and Regulation so that it joins exceptional circumstances. the broader Fines Victoria framework. This will require the engagement of a sufficient 14. The maximum time between receiving a report of non- number of trained staff who compliance and issuing an infringement notice be clarified are capable of exercising this and communicated. discretion in an appropriate and consistent fashion 15. A review be taken of the public information (written and digital) in relation to the infringements system and the internal review • the improved triaging of process – eg, clarification of when to apply for a review and infringements will also what evidence is required. require staff who are able to identify persons with special 16. DEDJTR will work in conjunction with the Department of circumstances and treat Justice and Regulation to update guidelines for internal them appropriately under the reviews, particularly for reviews on the grounds of special legislation, and make referrals circumstances where consideration should be given to: to the work and development permit scheme, where relevant. -- adoption of the City of Melbourne’s Model Operating Policy for Enforcement Agencies; and Summary of -- referrals to the work and development permit scheme. recommendations about 17. Options for a court-based offence for recidivist fare evaders modifications to the (ie, escalation from the infringement system) be explored. infringement system 18. Assess the resourcing and capability of DEDJTR’s infringements The review’s recommendations administration functions to facilitate improved triage of about modifications to the infringements to avoid the need to enter the court system. infringement system are presented in Box 11. 86 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
MEASURES TO Training should also focus Dealing with young people, IMPROVE TRAINING on the appropriate use of particularly those in special discretion, particularly in circumstances, is another area AND SUPPORT the following areas: where specialised training is FOR AUTHORISED needed to recognise the way OFFICERS • people who would clearly that this cohort engages with come into the ‘special authority figures such circumstances’ category; Any changes to the enforcement as authorised officers. regime will need to be preceded • people who are visiting Homelessness is one of special by the roll-out of appropriate Melbourne and are genuinely circumstances defined under training for authorised officers unaware of how to comply the legislation. Ahead of the so that they are familiar with with the system; and Melbourne Commonwealth the reformed arrangements. Games in 2006, a protocol for This training could be • where there is clear evidence dealing with homeless people was delivered in conjunction with of concession entitlement e.g. developed to provide a framework the implementation of new a child in school uniform who for relations between officials training modules, which have is using a student pass, but and homeless people ensure that a strong customer service has forgotten their student people who are homeless in public focus, and which have been concession card at home. places in public places (see Box developed in response to 12). The protocol was adopted by recommendations made by the As discussed earlier, one of Victoria Police, a number of state Victorian Ombudsman in her the objectives of Victoria’s government departments and investigation into an incident of overarching infringement policy agencies, and some local councils. alleged excessive force used by is to keep out of the criminal authorised officers. 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 87
While some local councils have Box 12 Key elements of the Victorian protocol for people continued to utilise the protocol who are homeless in public places since the 2006 Commonwealth The aim of the protocol is to provide a framework for relations Games to different degrees to between officials and people who are homeless in public places. guide policy and practice on a day-to-day basis, its status The protocol has been developed to ensure that people who are within Victoria Police and other homeless in public places are treated appropriately and that state government enforcement their rights are respected. The use of infringement fines impacts agencies is currently unclear. disproportionately on people experiencing poverty and can cause them to be drawn into protracted legal proceedings. The Justice Access Advisory Group37 is seeking to revive If you encounter a person who is, or appears to be, homeless, the Protocol. you should only respond if: In terms of public transport • they request assistance; ticketing, application of the protocol could help in the • they appear distressed or in need of assistance; exercising of discretion by • they are sheltering in circumstances that threaten the health authorised officers, and reduce and safety of themselves and/or others; the burden on the management of the infringement process and, • they are unaccompanied children who appear to be under potentially, the court system. the age of 15; If adopted, training would • their behaviour threatens their safety or the safety and be needed in the use of the security of people around them; protocol by authorised officers, in conjunction with existing • their behaviour is likely to result in damage to property training modules that focus on or to the environment; or recognising homeless people. • their safety is threatened by others.
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). 88 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The review notes that homeless This would help to address one protocols are used by ticketing of the main disadvantages Box 13 Recommendations enforcement agencies in other of removing the penalty fare – measures to improve jurisdictions. In New South Wales, scheme – namely that authorised training and support for for example, a protocol for officers would be slowed down authorised officers homeless people in public places since the issuing of penalty fares was first developed in 1999. In represents a streamlined process. It is recommended that: 2012, following a major review, 19. A checkbox be added an updated protocol was Finally, the review recommends to a report of non- endorsed by government that a marketing and compliance to flag the organisations with an communications campaign possible existence of operational presence in public be developed to address the special circumstances. places or who provide a service current lack of clarity reported by some stakeholders about the to assist homeless people. 20. A more consistent role, powers and responsibilities The signatories to the NSW approach to authorised of authorised officers. Such a protocol include the State Transit officer training is campaign would be in addition Authority of NSW and RailCorp. developed, including the regular marketing material in the appropriate use In addition to improved that is used to deter fare evasion. of discretion. training, the review has identified Box 13 presents the list of the other areas for support for 21. The paper-based review’s recommendations in authorised officers. infringement process relation to authorised officers. be phased out and the The operating efficiency of efficiency of authorised authorised officers could be officers be improved improved through the phasing by replacing current out of the existing paper-based handheld devices with process and by replacing current smartphone and app handheld devices with smart technology. phones and app technology, which would provide them 22. A marketing/ with more information than is communications program currently the case, and which be developed and have been successfully deployed executed to support the in New South Wales. role of authorised officers (ie, improved information about their role, powers, and responsibilities), in addition to regular fare evasion campaigns. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 89
Anecdotally the only other In 2014, penalty fares on National APPENDIX A: jurisdiction that has been found Rail services increased to £50 COMPLIANCE AND to operate a two tier system, or four times the full single fare ENFORCEMENT similar to that currently operated to the next station (whichever MODELS IN OTHER in Victoria, where there is no right is the highest), in addition to JURISDICTIONS of review, appeal or refund, is the full single fare for the rest of AND PORTFOLIO Bordeaux, France. the journey. There is also a 50% prompt payment discount. AREAS United Kingdom National Rail penalty fares are National Rail required to be paid on the spot, PUBLIC TRANSPORT however part payments of the TICKETING ‘National Rail’ is the current fare are permitted. In order to COMPLIANCE AND trading name for the Association pay a part payment the travellers ENFORCEMENT of Train Operating Companies are required by law to provide (ATOC), that runs the passenger a full name and address. They OVERSEAS services previously provided then have 21 days in which by the former British Railways. to pay the remaining amount. Some authorities, such as National Rail is the single network Transport for London, operate brand and overarching customer A penalty fare on the National what they call a penalty fare service system for the group Rail system can be appealed system which is in fact more similar of privately owned train in writing within 21 days of the to the infringement systems with operating companies which date of issue of the penalty fare penalty notices operated in some are franchised to operate notice. Penalty fares apply if you jurisdictions in Australia and the passenger trains on the main are travelling from a designated United States. rail network in Great Britain. penalty fare station – these stations are clearly indicated with It is important to note that two British Railways introduced a signs and large yellow posters. common elements of all these penalty fare in 1989 which was set international systems – no at twice the regular fare. Penalty Penalty Fares can be issued matter whether they are called fares are charged by some train if a passenger: penalty fares or infringement companies on certain train lines. fines - is the ability for people to • travels without a valid ticket; be able to pay the penalty fare • is unable to produce an or fine at a later time and the appropriate railcard on right to have the penalty fare a discounted ticket; or infringement fine appealed • travels in first class and reviewed and potentially accommodation with withdrawn and refunded. a standard ticket; • is aged 16 or over, travelling on a child rate ticket; • travels beyond the destination on their ticket.38
38 http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_ fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx 90 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The National Rail system Now the Penalty fare is £80, • the offender has provided TfL provides an option for those reduced to £40 if paid within 21 with exceptional mitigation who are unable to obtain days. Similar to National Railways against the prosecution or in a ticket at their point of a penalty fare can be appealed the opinion of the Prosecutions departure. A ‘Permit to Travel’ within 21 days of the date of Manager it is not in the public can be bought from the issue. In London fare evasion is a interest to prosecute; and machines that are provided criminal offence that could lead at most stations, and allow to a fine of up to £1000 and a • the offender agrees to pay train travel until the passenger criminal record. the administrative costs has a reasonable opportunity incurred in the processing to buy the ticket needed to Revenue Enforcement of the case file. complete the journey. and Prosecutions Policy Transport for London operates a three stage appeals process: This permit must be upgraded Transport for London has to a valid ticket at the first a comprehensive public • First stage opportunity39. The price of the revenue and prosecutions ticket is reduced by the amount policy. Transport for London (TfL) -- The first stage appeals paid for the ‘Permit to Travel’. prosecutes fare evasion offences. process for appeals If a traveller is unable to TfL Revenue prosecutors send relating to London Buses, purchase a Permit to Travel (eg, a verification letter that invites London Underground, all machines are out of order), the alleged offender to give Docklands Light Railway, then they should obtain a ticket an explanation for the alleged London Overground and from the Conductor on the train offence or to provide any TfL Rail are handled by or at the first opportunity. comments about the alleged the Independent Appeals incident. The policy states that Service (IAS) on behalf of Transport for London any explanation/comments given TfL. IAS accepts appeals by the alleged offender will be made by mail or online. Transport for London operates taken into account in arriving The first stage appeals for a penalty fare system under on a decision to prosecute. appeals relating to London the London Regional Transport Tramlink are handled by (Penalty Fares) Act 1992 and the In addition, where the offence is Tram Operations Limited Greater London Authority Act fare evasion, TfL may decide to (TOL). 1999 similar to those that operate issue an offender with a warning -- The IAS and TOL may on the National Rail Services. The letter in lieu of prosecution where request further evidence penalty fare was initially set at £10 it is deemed appropriate and the from an appellant to or twice the single fare to the next following conditions are met: station (whichever was higher) support their claim. In and a single full fare for the rest • the offender admits the these circumstances of the journey. irregular travel; a letter requesting the supporting information • the risk of reoffending will be sent to the is considered minimal; and appellant specifying a deadline within which this information must be provided. If the deadline is not met the appeal will normally be refused.
39 http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_ fares/ticket_types/46592.aspx REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 91
-- IAS and TOL communicate • Third (and final) stage -- The IAP can raise issues their decisions directly related to legal matters, -- Final stage appeals with the appellant and conditions of carriage and are considered by the provide details of how to associated regulations to Independent Appeals make a further appeal. be pursued independently Panel. The IAP operates by TfL. The IAP can also independently of TfL • Second stage request legal advice from and was established in TfL General Counsel if -- Second stage appeals consultation with London unable to make a clear are considered by the TravelWatch. The IAP judgment or decision. Youth and Penalty comprises three persons The third/final stage of Fares Manager in TfL’s of suitable standing and the appeals process is Enforcement and On- relevant expertise for the final opportunity for Street Operations division. the task. They are wholly an individual to make independent from TfL, its -- If an appellant submits a an appeal against a subsidiaries, contractors, second stage appeal, all penalty fare notice. All operators and providers. previous correspondence final stage appeals must TfL is bound by the with IAS or TOL will be be submitted in writing decision of the IAP. In requested by TfL and and are considered by this respect, TfL may considered as part of their the IAP. The IAP considers be required by the IAP appeal. penalty fare appeals from to cancel a penalty fare London Underground, -- The Youth and Penalty notice and/or refund the London Buses, London Fares Manager reviews payment of a penalty fare. each case and considers Overground, Docklands any mitigation put forward Light Railway, London by the appellant. The Tramlink and TfL Rail. appellant is then informed Figure 8 provides a of the decision in writing. diagrammatic representation -- If the decision is made to of TfL’s penalty fares appeals turn down the appellant’s process. second stage appeal, they will be provided with details on how to submit a final appeal to the Independent Appeals Panel (IAP). 92 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
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)
PENALTY FARE ISSUED
Next day letter sent (LB, LU, TfL Rail only)
NO 1ST STAGE APPEAL?
YES
CONSIDERED BY IAS
YES YES PAID IN FULL? ALLOWED?
NO NO Reminder letter sent Letter sent to Appellant
YES PAYMENT NO 2ND STAGE RECEIVED? APPEAL?
NO YES Final reminder letter sent CONSIDERED BY YOUTH AND PENALTY FARES MANAGER
YES PAYMENT RECEIVED? YES ALLOWED?
NO
NO DEBT Letter sent to Appellant COLLECTION OR PROSECUTION CONSIDERED NO 3RD STAGE APPEAL?
YES CONSIDERED BY IAP
Letter sent YES to Appellant ALLOWED? (with refund if appropriate) NO Letter sent to Appellant
CLOSED REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 93
United States The MTA, including the Long The Transit Adjudication Bureau Island Rail Road and the Metro (TAB) is responsible for processing New York North Railroad, offer a more summonses issued to individuals expensive ticket when sold who have been alleged to have The Metropolitan Transportation on board a train – this can be violated one or more of the rules Authority (MTA) is a public considered a true ‘penalty fare’. governing conduct in the use of benefit corporation responsible Peak one-way and off-peak one- subway or bus facilities. Violations for public transportation in the way tickets may be purchased on are issued by NYC police officers U.S. state of New York, serving board trains at a price which is and/or NYC transit inspectors 12 counties in southeastern New $5.75 to $6.50 higher than tickets who enforce the rules of conduct. York, along with two counties bought at ticket machines or The rules of conduct include in southwestern Connecticut ticket windows prior to boarding violations such as fare evasion, under contract to the the vehicle. smoking or interference with the Connecticut Department of movement of a transit vehicle and Transportation, carrying over This is not described as a are available for public reference 11 million passengers on an penalty, rather a ‘more expensive on this link on the MTA website. average weekday system wide, option’ in the suite of ticket and over 800,000 vehicles on purchase options. The MTA website provides its seven toll bridges and two information on how to appeal 41 tunnels per weekday. The MTA rules cover the a notice of violation. The payment of a fare and access MTA provides an out of court The MTA has the responsibility to MTA facilities. These rules individual face to face review for developing and implementing prohibit the use of or entrance process. ‘A hearing process has a unified mass transportation to MTA facilities without payment been established to permit an policy for the New York of the fare or tender of other individual who has been issued metropolitan area, including valid fare media. A fine of $100 a notice of violation the right to all five boroughs of New York or court action is applicable challenge the violation before City and the suburban counties for fare evasion. an impartial hearing officer. The of Dutchess, Nassau, Orange, hearing officer will review the Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and The MTA issues notices of violation violation along with all pertinent Westchester, all of which together or a summons. These can be information and will accept are the ‘Metropolitan Commuter issued by either a police officer testimony and evidence from Transportation District’.40 or a transit inspector. The notice the recipient of the notice of of violation will include: information violation (the respondent) and in advising on which section of the appropriate cases as determined rules of conduct MTA claims you by the hearing officer, from the have violated, the nature of the police officer or inspector who alleged prohibited conduct, the issued the notice of violation amount of the fine, and a hearing as well as any witness or other date. If a notice of violation has concerned party relating to been issued, a transport user the issuance of the violation. may appear or request a hearing Respondents may dispute the prior to the date provided on allegations contained in the the summons.42 notice of violation by mail or in person.43
41 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/ TransitAdjudicationBureau/rules.htm 42 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/ 43 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/ 40 ibid TransitAdjudicationBureau/violations.htm TransitAdjudicationBureau/dispute.htm 94 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The findings of an in person In the New York City metro area, Germany’s ‘honor system’ for hearing can be appealed. If the MTA has a dedicated team public transport operates on following an in-person hearing that helps deter fare evasion. This the ‘trust but verify’ principle46. or a hearing by mail a customer specialised team is known as the Plain-clothed controllers patrol disagrees with the final Eagle Team, which was created the system. If caught without a determination of the hearing in 2007. The Eagle Team has valid (stamped) ticket or pass, officer, the customer may file an been credited with reducing fare transport users are required pay appeal within 30 days from the evasion incidents throughout the a fine on the spot. Exemptions notice of decision and order. MTA system. In addition to helping are not currently offered for The appeal will be decided by deter fare evasion, the Eagle Team tourists. The fine increased in an appeals board consisting of routinely collaborates with the 2015 from €40 to €60 (AU$88). three hearing officers who did New York City Police Department not serve as the original hearing to locate ‘hot spots’ where If a passenger is unable to pay officer who made the first increased fare evasion activity the total amount of €60 at once, decision on the case. could become a problem.45 it is possible to pay a partial amount of €10. A receipt is issued In the appeal, the reason(s) Germany for the amount paid whether must specify why the hearing €60 or €10 which is valid in the officer’s final decision should In Germany, a penalty fare context as a fare which entitles be reversed or modified based system is operated across the a passenger complete their on error of law or fact. It is Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr, the journey until they leave the important to understand that local transport system including means of transport used. the appeals board cannot suburban rail, local buses and consider testimony or evidence underground trains. Unlike urban For non or partial payment of the that was not presented to the rail systems in most world cities, increased fare, the passenger initial hearing officer. Unless there are no turnstiles on the S- will receive a payment request otherwise requested, it is not a or U-Bahn in Germany (ie, they by post. The outstanding amount requirement for the customer, are open systems). Travellers are must be paid within 14 days. If the customer’s attorney or other not required to feed a ticket into the increased transportation fee authorised representative to a machine in order to get onto is not paid within the time limit attend the appeal however, and a train. specified in the payment request, if the customer wishes to attend a processing fee of at least €5 the customer should advise TAB will be charged for each written in writing when filing the appeal. reminder. Germany operates The customer will be advised a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ either personally or by registered policy before criminal convictions certified mail of the date of the apply for fare evasion. 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
45 https://hartride2012tampa.wordpress. 46 http://www.german-way.com/travel- 44 http://web.mta.info/nyct/rules/ com/2013/05/20/fare-evasion-dont- and-tourism/public-transport-in- TransitAdjudicationBureau/appeal.htm even-try-it/ germany/ REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 95
Penalty fares are included in the France The base fine for not having contractual small print which a valid ticket is €30 (AU$44) travellers agree to by boarding The Paris Métro is operated and vary up to fines of up to a vehicle operated by the Berlin- by the Régie autonome des €63 (AU$93) which are payable Brandenburg public transport transports parisiens (RATP), a on the spot. When an offense has association. This contract allows public transport authority that occurred the controller asks the for a reduced penalty fare if a also operates bus services, light offender to pay the offence on passenger can prove within a rail lines and many bus routes. the spot. If the offender cannot week they were in possession The state-owned company pay on the spot he/she must of a valid season ticket.47 that runs the service says fare prove her identity to establish evasion cost about €90m a record. An additional fee of It is estimated that transit annually in lost revenue.48 €30 (AU$44) is payable if the companies lose €250 million fine is not paid within two RATP operates a penalty fare each year due to fare evasion, months. An additional fee is system on the Paris Metro. according to the Association of payable if a police check is This is enforced by Controllers German Transport Companies required to establish identity (Authorized Officers) who work (VDV). The association estimates of €38 (AU$56). Additional fees in team of between three and that 3.5 per cent of bus and train are applied if police invention is 14 agents. Controllers typically riders travel without a ticket. required or if the public treasury wear pants and white shirt and is required to collect the fine. DB Fernverkehr AG (German for a badge to mark their authority. ‘DB long-distance traffic’) is a SNCF is France’s national state- Controllers are equipped with semi-independent division of owned railway company and a portable decoder drive Deutsche Bahn that operates manages the rail traffic in France devices which has the capacity long-distance passenger trains and the Principality of Monaco. in Germany. DB Fernverkehr to read the type of pass and operates all InterCityExpress the last three validations. SNCF is France’s national state- and Intercity trains in Germany Controllers also carry an owned railway company and as well as several EuroCity electronic payment terminal. manages the rail traffic in France trains throughout Europe. DB and the Principality of Monaco. Fernverkehr does not operate a SNCF operates the country’s penalty fare scheme. Instead it national rail services, including has ticket inspectors on all trains. 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.
47 http://www.thelocal.de/20150630/fare- 48 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b25c94e- dodging-fine-increases-from-40- da14-11e4-ab32-00144feab7de. to-60 html#axzz41obsWVOc 96 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
.SNCF operates a penalty fare PUBLIC TRANSPORT Sydney Trains, the largest system in which those caught on TICKETING operator in NSW is contracted board train without a valid ticket to employ train and deploy are subject to a fine payable on COMPLIANCE AND Transport Officers across the the spot, which is increased from ENFORCEMENT IN transport system, irrespective of €50 ($74 AUD) to €88 ($130 AUD) OTHER AUSTRALIAN mode. Processing and payment if the passenger prefers not to JURISDICTIONS of public transport infringement pay on the spot. fines in NSW is managed by the Most states use infringement Office of State Revenue, State SNCF loses €500 million every notices or fines as the tool for Debt Recovery. year through people trying encouraging ticket compliance to cheat the ticket system. Ticketing system and enforcement. Beyond this In an attempt to reduce these approach, governance, and losses, in March 2015 SNCF New South Wales operates administrative systems vary. introduced a new regime of fines a smart card system similar to Interestingly some states, such according to the length of the Victoria, which was introduced as New South Wales take a journey. Those caught on board in 2010 with rollout complete compliance-based approach without a ticket on a journey by 2014. to encourage long-term longer than 150 kilometres will compliance, while other states Current infringement in NSW have to pay a €50 ($74 AUD) take an approach more focused fine as well as the regular price on enforcement, detecting and In NSW, when a customer is of ticket. Those preferring not penalising non-compliance. found travelling without a valid to pay upfront will be issued an ticket there are three available €88 ($130 AUD) fine as well as the courses of action: regular price of the ticket.49 New South Wales • Verbal warning/no action. Passengers buying tickets Governance on board (without having paid • Caution – essentially an Transport for NSW is the state the extra booking charge) now offence is proven but the agency responsible for functions have to pay €7 if the journey value of the notice is $0. equivalent to DEDJTR in Victoria. is shorter than 150 kilometres – A record is kept of the Sydney Trains is the agency up from €4 previously. customer’s details. NSW is that operates the train system If the journey is longer than currently reviewing the look in NSW. Transport for NSW 150 kilometres, they have to pay and feel of the cautions is responsible for the policy an additional €15 fee compared issued and is aiming to settings for compliance and to the previous fee of €7.50 use this method as an customer service and providing educational tool. strategic and operation direction for the delivery and deployment of Transport Officer Services.
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 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 97
• Fine – generally $200 for Transport officers Transport officers are Adults and $50 for Children. authorised to address Offences and amounts are Transport officers and NSW behaviour that constitutes an prescribed in the Passenger Police officers are responsible for offence under Part 5, Conduct Transport Regulations 2007. enforcing ticketing compliance of passengers and other persons Note that in NSW this is called and patrolling public transport. in or on public passenger an ’on-the-spot fine’ because They have the right to ask to vehicles, trains and railway the amount of the fine is see a ticket and concession premises, Part 6, covering a lesser amount than the entitlement at any time and tickets, and Part 7, special maximum or court-imposed carry card readers to check the provisions relating to buses. penalty for that offence. card balance, recent transaction Transport officers in NSW The actual fine is issued history and the card type (adult, carry smart phones. These in the post after the event, senior/pensioner or child/youth). are the only equipment they and is paid like a bill is paid. require to conduct their daily In NSW the role of transport business. Unlike in Victoria, where The customer is handed a officers is different to that of authorised officers are required card with the time and date of authorised officers in Victoria. to carry around 4 kilograms of the offence, and advised that Transport officers are authorised gear, NSW transport officers the fine will come in the mail. to address minor behavioral found that using a smart phone The card used was modelled offences and parking offences reduced their interaction time, on the RoNC cards used by if they are observed. Under from around 15-20 minutes for a Metro Trains in Melbourne, and the Passenger Transport handwritten ticket to 2-3 minutes TfNSW are currently reviewing Regulations 2007 and Transport using a smartphone. the information provided on for NSW Instrument of Authority, that card. Once issued a fine, transport officers have the Sydney Trains found other a customer can request a authority to: unexpected benefits of using review. Reviews are managed by smartphones. Sydney Trains • Inspect transport services the State Debt Recovery Office, issued each of the transport and facilities for persons who a branch of the Office of State officers with smartphones with may have committed or be Revenue, to agreed and published permission for private use, committing an offence; guidelines. If a reader was proven and found that this has led to be not functioning because • Require a person to provide to Transport officers taking of a power outage, for example, their full name and address; ownership and more care of the fine would be overturned. their smartphones. Another • Serve a penalty notice A customer can also elect to have unexpected benefit of using to a person who has the matter heard in court. smartphones is that training committed an offence; material can be stored on the TfNSW do not offer Penalty • Unlike Victoria, transport phone and is available for easy Fares or a pay-on-the-spot officers in NSW do not have reference. Transport officers payment to customers. TfNSW powers to detain or arrest. can used this information when is considering offering early- dealing with customers. For payment discounts to improve example, transport officers compliance; and is also keen are able to show customers to serve fines electronically to visual examples of the correct improve payment rates. concession card they are required to have. 98 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Fare evasion statistics in NSW NSW introduced a way to limit Sydney Trains provides a web the sale of concession tickets by page on applicable fines within The Bureau of Transport Statistics restricting the sale of concession their page on conditions of travel. in NSW conducted a survey in tickets from ticket machines at The Sydney Trains fines site November 2015 that showed some stations instead requiring provides the following general that fare evasion across the customers to show proof of their information: “If you have been rail network had fallen by 0.4 entitlement when purchasing a fined, you will receive a penalty percentage points compared ticket from a ticket office. This notice in the mail within 7-10 to the May 2015 estimate. is implemented each day after days. Payment can be made the 9am peak period. As a result, to the by mail, phone or online. The results of the survey NSW has found that concession If you wish to dispute the penalty showed that: misuse has almost halved on notice, you have the option of • Fare evasion across the rail and is down by more than writing a letter to the State Debt whole network fell from two thirds on ferries. NSW found Recovery Office or elect to have 5.2 per cent to 4.8 per cent. that full fare ticket purchases the matter dealt with by a court. increased by four million tickets, It also includes a link to the State • The compliance rate on saving 10 million dollars of Debt Recovery Office website Sydney trains is 95.2 per cent. lost revenue (otherwise lost to for further information on the • The compliance rate on concession misuse) in the year penalty notice review process. Sydney light rail is 96.1 per cent following the introduction of Less than 4% of reviews result this approach. in the fine being overturned”.51 • The compliance rate on Sydney buses is 95.1 per cent. Transparency of Transport Western Australia for NSW compliance and The compliance rate on Sydney Governance in WA ferries is 96.9 per cent 150 enforcement policies transport officers operated Transport for NSW provides There are three authorities with across the system until June 2015 a page on fare evasion and fines a role public transport in WA. when an additional 65 joined the within its page on ticketing. This The Department of Transport, ranks in June 2015. provides information similar to the Public Transport Authority that found on the Sydney Trains and Transperth. The Department website. This includes what to do of Transport plays the strategic if you are fined, which fines may and planning leadership role. apply and how to pay. Payment The Public Transport Authority of fines is managed by the NSW was established in 2003, bringing State Debt Recovery Office. 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).
51 http://www.sydneytrains.info/ travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/ fines REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 99
The PTA was created to clarify Smartrider system TransWA operates regional the function of the Department in Western Australia train services in Western of Planning and Infrastructure as Australia. TransWA does have a land-and-transport planning The SmartRider system was a smartcommuter card which authority, while consolidating made available generally provides discounts for regular the responsibility for delivery of in April 2007 following two trial travellers; however it is not public transport with the PTA. periods. SmartRider cards an electronic ‘smart card’ for The PTA’s vision is to increase the are available in adult, child, tagging on or off. use of public transport through concession and pensioner cards. the provision of customer- Like the myki system, SmartRider Current infringement focussed, safe and cost-effective users are required to ‘tag on’ in Western Australia passenger transport services. (touch on) and ‘tag off’ (touch off) for each journey. Western Australia has what is The Public Transport Authority called an on the ‘spot penalty (PTA) of WA conducts its business Transperth offers a 25% discount fine’ of $100 for not holding a with the legislative support of the to register a SmartRider valid ticket, however it is not Public Transport Authority Act card and establish autoload payable on the spot – it is 2003 and the Public Transport (automatic payment). Topping issued on the spot and can Authority Regulations 2003. up automatically via Autoload is be appealed. the only way users can achieve The Transperth integrated similar levels of fare savings Transperth train staff approach public transport network is compared to the previous revenue protection with a firm centrally-controlled, planned, Multirider system. direction compared to the staff marketed and coordinated by on the bus & ferry side of the the Transperth division of the Tagging on is not required in business. There is a dedicated PTA. Transperth has a range of the free bus zone, or for CAT bus Revenue Protection team contracted service providers services. If a card balance at conducting revenue protection including Transperth Train the start of the journey is less on train services only. A person Operations (a separate PTA than the cash fare of at least identified without a valid ticket division), three contracted bus two sections, the transport user on a train will be infringed companies, one contracted ferry will not be able to travel. If the $100.00 for any breach of the operator and numerous ancillary card balance at the start of the ticketing regulations. A copy contracts such as cleaning, journey is at least equal to the of the infringement can be maintenance, signage, ticketing cash fare of at least two sections, found on page 28 of the PTA and printing. the transport users can tag on Regulations. The infringement is to travel any distance. If the fare $100 regardless of the number of that is deducted when a user times you have received a fine. 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. 100 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Transperth staff conducting Any appeal received against an Transparency of WA revenue protection exercises on infringement will be reviewed and compliance and bus and ferry will approach the a formal decision to withdraw enforcement policies same situation slightly differently, or uphold the infringement taking into consideration the decided by the appropriate staff. The Transperth website provides interaction the passenger had In the instance the infringement passenger information regarding with the bus driver or ferry is withdrawn the passenger the use of Transperth services master if it is a cash fare. This is is advised in writing with a and specific detail regarding to consider whether there is an “Form 2” issued (page 30 of the ticketing, infringements and the element of doubt at the initial Regulations). If the infringement relevant legislation supporting point of sale of the ticket – ie, did is upheld the passenger is PTA staff in the process of the driver or ferry master sight advised formally in writing and revenue protection. a valid concession card when offered another 28 days from the they sold the concession ticket date on the letter to finalise the Transperth website contains and the passenger entered the payment of the infringement. The information on the fine that conveyance? In this instance passenger still has the option at may be received for certain staff will offer the passenger the this stage to elect to contest the behaviours. A minimum on the chance to pay a ‘make-up’ fare matter in court. spot fine of $100 applies if you do to the equivalent of the proper not carry a valid ticket or valid fare or incur an infringement. If the infringement is ignored or proof of concession entitlement. no communication between the On this page are links to how When an infringement is issued recipient of the infringement and to pay a fine. After a 28 day by the officer the matter is the PTA is entered into within period fines are passed on the explained to the passenger the initial 28 day period the Fines Enforcement Registry and with the payment options and matter is referred to the Fines customers are no longer able the appeals process outlined Enforcement Registry (FER). A to pay them online. The site in detail. This detail is also reminder letter is issued by FER explains that appeals against a contained on the infringement. with an administration fee of fine must be made in writing, by $16.40 applied to the value of email or letter to a listed email If a passenger wishes to appeal the $100 infringement. address at the public transport the infringement, this must Outstanding infringements authority. No further information be done within 28 days of the can result in suspension of a about how long or how the offence. This process can WA motor driver’s licence. process will work is provided. only be conducted via written communication (email or letter) Transport officers in WA The Transperth site does not to ensure a record of the provide information about the process can be presented In order to conduct revenue role, responsibilities or authority to a magistrate should the protection duties in WA, a person of Transit Officers or Revenue matter remain in dispute. must be an ’authorised person‘ Protection Squad Officers. 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. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 101
Queensland go card system in Queensland • two trips to/from Brisbane Domestic or International Governance in Queensland The go card system was Airports via AirTrain. Translink launched in Brisbane in 2008 also sells paper tickets (one- In Queensland there are following a trial period from 2006. way tickets in SE Qld, one-way three authorities with a role in go cards are available in adult, & daily & weekly in Cairns). compliance and enforcement, child, concession and seniors Queensland Rail Travel Department of Transport and type cards. When purchasing operates rail trips in QLD Main Roads, Translink and a go card, a refundable (outside SE QLD and Cairns Queensland Rail. Department deposit is applied ($10 adults, metro); however these are a of Transport and Main Roads $5 concession), on top of the separate ticket system plans, manages and delivers starting balance. The deposit Queensland’s integrated allows users to finish their • discount offers and tourist transport environment to journey even when they have information. achieve sustainable transport insufficient funds on the go card, Current infringement solutions for road, rail, air and although the go card has to have in Queensland sea. Translink as a division of a positive balance at the start the Department of Transport of the journey. On the CityTrain In Queensland, when a customer and Main Roads, is responsible network, users are only required is found travelling without a valid for leading and shaping to ‘touch on’ at their station of ticket there are two available Queensland’s overall passenger origin and ‘touch off’ at their courses of action: transport system. Translink destination station – transfers facilitates passenger transport between CityTrain services do • verbal warning/written services for Queenslanders not require additional touches. warning; or and aims to provide a single On buses and ferries, users must integrated transport network ‘touch on’ and ‘touch off’ for • fine of $235. accessible to everyone. each service boarded.In 2012, In Queensland, a customer Queensland Rail is dedicated TransLink launched a new SEEQ without the correct fare who has to increasing rail patronage Card targeting tourists. The not had contact with the system through improved reliability, SEEQ Card operates similarly may be receive a written warning frequency of services and to the go card, but includes: notice. In some instances, senior making rail travel the transport network officers may give a mode of choice in Queensland. • unlimited travel within the TransLink region for verbal warning. The customer’s a duration of three or five personal details are recorded if consecutive days from the a written notice is issued. If the first trip (depending on the customer has received a warning card type); previously notice, they will receive a penalty infringement • adult or child fare classes (no notice. Verbal warnings are most concession or seniors cards); frequently used to manage • expiry 12 months after the tourist non-compliance in the date of purchase if not Gold Coast area. used; and 102 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Transport Officers • require person to leave public Queensland’s policy in Queensland transport infrastructure; and framework for compliance • use force to remove and enforcement Several authorities employ a person from public authorised officers in The Queensland Government transport infrastructure. Queensland. Currently Senior does not have a compliance and Network Officers employed by In addition, they have the enforcement policy framework; Translink, Railway Squad of the authority to: however Translink, as a division Queensland Police, Authorised of Department of Transport Officers of Queensland Rail • direct a person to leave and Main Roads has developed and Customer Service Officers or not to enter a public a revenue protection strategy. from G:Link operate across passenger vehicle; The strategy was developed the network. Senior Network in consultation with larger Officers (SNOs) began operating • issue warning notices and operators, consultants, Monash on the network in 2010. SNOs penalty infringement notices; University (Graham Currie), are ‘authorised officers’ who Senior Network Officers. • detain person for committing have been highly trained to a detainable offence; use extended powers available The strategy consists of four streams, technology, data, under section 111(3) of Transport with additional power to: Operations (Passenger Transport) education and enforcement. Act 1994 and the Transport • use handcuffs to detain The technology strategy Infrastructure Act 1994. They a person; consists of actions such as installing more gates as stations have the authority to enforce • search a detained person; and improving technology such TransLink’s Conditions of Travel and for passengers using the network, as considering smartphones. and may issue infringement • take and retain particular The data strategy consists of notices including fines for public articles.53 actions such as examining the transport offences.52 data to find patterns and to Fare evasion statistics find opportunities for better Under Queensland legislation in Queensland education. Education strategy senior network officers have actions include the potential Data publicised in the media the power to: roll out of a positive light in September 2015 indicates hearted campaign to encourage that in real terms fare evasion • require production of a ticket; compliance. Enforcement in Queensland has doubled • require evidence of strategy actions include focusing in the last decade54. concessional requirement; the right number of enforcement officers and the right training • require information from for officers. certain persons; • require name, address, age and evidence of these;
53 http://translink.com.au/about- translink/who-we-are/revenue- protection 54 http://www.brisbanetimes.com. 52 http://translink.com.au/about- au/queensland/queensland-fare- translink/who-we-are/revenue- evasion-doubles-in-a-decade- protection 20150923-gjthvf.html REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 103
South Australia Adelaide metro bus services are In addition to metrotickets and provided by three private bus metrocards, visitors can choose Governance in contractors: Transfield (Light to purchase a three-day Visitor South Australia City Buses), Australia Transit pass for $25. This can only be Enterprises (SouthLink) and purchased from the Adelaide In South Australia, Transit Systems (Torrens Transit). Metro InfoCentres, and a limited the Department of Each operator is responsible range of travel agents and Planning, Transport and for compliance on their buses. accommodation locations. Infrastructure (DPTI) has the overall responsibility to deliver No country passenger rail Metrocards can be purchased public transport policy, planning services have operated and recharged at agents, and infrastructure. in South Australia since 1990. vending machines (including A range of bus operators service onboard vehicles) or online. Adelaide Metro is Adelaide’s country areas under the Bus There is also an option to set public transport system, run by SA banner; however they issue up an automatic recharge. the Public Transport Services individual tickets. Division of DPTI. It is intermodal Agents which sell metrocards system offering an integrated Metrocard system include various newsagencies, network of bus, tram, and in South Australia supermarkets, and convenience train service throughout the stores. Currently there are over metropolitan area to 63 million The public transport system in 300 individual retail agents in riders annually, with an average metropolitan Adelaide has two Adelaide and some per-urban daily ridership of 33,000 people. ticketing systems.55 locations (e.g. Murray Bridge), but no agreements with retail chains. • paper ‘metrotickets’ for single Services are now run by four Around half of retailers are top- trips, two section trips, or day operators – united with common up only, with the other half able trips; and ticketing systems, marketing, and to sell Metrocards (but not paper signage under the supervision • rechargeable metrocards. metrotickets). of South Australia’s Department of Planning, Transport and Metrocards have the option of The cost of a metrocard is $5, Infrastructure. regular top-ups or a 28 day pass and at the time of purchase option which offers a discount. a minimum top-up is required – The Adelaide railway consisting There is also a Seniors Metrocard so for full fare the upfront cost of six lines is operated by the which offers a significant is $10 (card plus $5 initial credit), Public Transport Division of DPTI. discount to regular Metrocard or for concession $8.50 (card The Glenelg tram, the only of fares, including free travel in the plus $3.50 initial credit). Adelaide’s tramways to survive intrapeak period. the 1950s, was also integrated Single trip metrotickets are into the current system. DPTI is available from vending machines responsible for compliance on (including onboard vehicles), trains and trams. bus drivers, or Adelaide Metro InfoCentres. Day trip metrotickets are only available from bus drivers or Adelaide Metro InfoCentres (not from vending machines).
55 http://adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets/ Fares 104 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Passengers are required to There is only one tier of PSAs perform a range of duties validate their metroticket or infringement system in South besides revenue protection metrocard each time a vehicle Australia. Failing to comply and – they have a part-time is boarded. If a passenger does being in breach of any provision compliance role and none are not have a ticket on boarding, related to payment of fares committed full-time to revenue they must immediately purchase as outlined in the Act has a fine protection. PSAs also have a and validate a ticket, or recharge of $220 (comprising expiation customer service role working and validate their metrocard fee for fare evasion of $160 plus at special events and assisting (this can be done onboard $60 victims of crime levy) with passengers navigate around the the vehicle). a maximum penalty of $1,250 train and tram network. for each offence. Passengers travelling on The private bus operators a concession fare must always Depending on circumstance have their own compliance travel with a valid, approved and offence, first time offenders officers (coordinators) who concession or student card. may receive a caution. perform revenue protection – generally about six officers per Current infringement Transport officers bus depot. They have a similar in South Australia in South Australia role and training to Passenger Service Assistants. Transfield The current policy in South 95 Transit Police (SA Police also employs security officers Australia is to educate customers, staff) and 75 Passenger Service across their buses three nights direct them to purchase a ticket Assistants (PSAs) are deployed per week. All prescribed officers if they do not have one, and then across the train and tram across all service providers use report them to the prosecutions network in South Australia. the Portable Reader Decoder team only as a last resort if they equipment that is part of the do not comply. PSAs are ‘prescribed officers’ who have the following powers current ticketing contract. Passenger Service Assistants in response to any offence, PSAs (and coordinators on bus (train and tram network) and disorderly or offensive behaviour: services) do not issue on-the- coordinators (bus network) spot fines – this removes a great can report an alleged offence • request the person alights deal of conflict. Instead they to the Prosecutions department from the vehicle; are trained to take details, then in DPTI, who then assess whether • if this request is not report alleged offenders to the an offence has occurred and forthcoming, to use Prosecutions department in DPTI may issue an expiation notice reasonable force to who then assess the report and (infringement). remove the person; decide if the alleged offenders Transit Police have the authority • request the person produce should receive an expiation notice to issue an infringement notice their travel card or ticket (infringement) or a warning. on the spot. and/or their student or concession card; • obtain from the person their name, usual place of residence and evidence of proof of identity. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 105
Transit Police perform a similar Depending on the process at the Applicable fines for fare evasion revenue protection role to PSAs, time, officers may use discretion are also listed in the South but in addition they have the when choosing whether to Australian Passenger Transport power to issue on-the-spot TINs report an alleged offence, or if Regulations 2009, which may and make arrests. PSAs and there is a zero tolerance policy be difficult for some people to Transit Police have a good working in force then they report every access. Expiation notices have relationship, and often perform passenger that allegedly offends. information included on how to revenue protection activities Depending on circumstance and request a review. These reviews together with transit police. offence, first time offenders may are overseen by the Manager receive a caution. Otherwise of Audit and Assurance. Fare evasion statistics the prosecutions department in South Australia will issue an expiation notice Summary of arrangements (infringement notice) with a fine. in other jurisdictions The following are the estimated average rates of fare evasion Compliance is generally guided The following table provides across the network for 2014-15: by the policy and direction of the a comparison of public transport government of the day. ticketing compliance and • Tram 13.2 per cent enforcement arrangements Adelaide Metro and the • Bus 1.4 per cent in the key Australian states. Government of South Australia • Train 18.3 per cent provide a comprehensive site on fare evasion, fare options South Australia’s policy and how to purchase tickets, framework for compliance your responsibilities as and enforcement a passenger and a page that describes the role and There is currently no published responsibilities of Transit Police policy framework. and Prescribed Officers.56 This The current policy of DPTI site is focused on how to comply is to educate customers, direct with the system and prevent them to purchase a ticket if they getting an infringement. do not have one, and then report A separate site outlining the them only as a last resort if they responsibilities of users of public do not comply. transport in Adelaide provides information on the minimum and maximum fine for fare evasion, as shown in Table 9 on the next page.57
56 https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/ Fare-Evasion/Transit-Police-and- Prescribed-Officers 57 https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/ Fare-Evasion/Your-responsibilities 106 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Table 9 Jurisdictional comparison of public transport ticketing compliance and enforcement arrangements 58 59 60
Victoria New South Western Queensland South Wales Australia Australia
Current policy No, however Yes, internal No, however No framework PTV has not public have current a current revenue revenue strategy strategy
Current 3.8%58 4.8%59 0.2%60 8.07% on Tram 13.2% network fare trams evasion rate October 2015 November April 2015 Bus 1.4% 2015 4% on buses Train 18.3% 3% on trains 2014-15 estimates
Total number 611 215 230 170 on trains of enforcement and trams . officers Bus companies employ more.
Initial raining 6 months. Passenger period Graduates Service obtain Attendants: certificate 3 1 week theory in Customer plus about Engagement 2 weeks on the job.
Transit Police: More comprehensive training from SAPol.
Regularity Annually 12-15 months. Refresh Depends on of refresher Supported 3 times a changes to training/ by mystery year with the Act and/or competency shopper annual infield Regulations. assurance feedback assessment system. with supervisor
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 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 107
Victoria New South Western Queensland South Wales Australia Australia
Power to Yes No Yes (SNOs Yes (Transit detain or only) Police only) arrest
Infringement Yes Yes Yes Yes system includes official warning
Initial $223 $20061 $10062 $2353 $22064 infringement fine
On the spot Yes No No No No payment of fine
Maximum fine $758 $55065 $50066 Ordered to $125010 pay court costs
Authorised Cargo pants, Pant and Cargo pants Transit Police – Officer uniform vest to carry shirt, no and polo shirt Police uniform. equipment need to carry or shirt. No equipment vest, don’t want military look
61 62 63 64 65 66
61 http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx 62 https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/forcustomers/plan/travelconditions 63 https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Your-responsibilities 64 http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines 65 http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx 66 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/ptr2009357/s100.html 108 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
VICTORIAN • buy a day pass in preparation CityLink – e-TAG system for travel; or COMPLIANCE AND The CityLink system also offers ENFORCEMENT • buy a pass for travel that has leniency in relation to misuse MODELS IN OTHER been undertaken within the based on misunderstandings. PORTFOLIO AREAS last three days. If a person uses an e-TAG which is intended for use on a private If a vehicle is detected travelling personal vehicle on a light on CityLink without a valid CityLink Toll enforcement commercial vehicle, then CityLink account or pass, CityLink issues send a letter to inform the owner CityLink model a Toll invoice. These invoices are of the vehicle of the mistaken and identification sent to the registered owner of use of the e-TAG type and offers a vehicle, obtained from VicRoads. the opportunity to correct the CityLink is able to operate a If the toll invoice is not paid by the e-TAG type without penalties or different model of compliance due date, then CityLink follows charges for mistaken use. This and enforcement for its tollway up by sending a Final Toll Invoice demonstrates an ‘in good faith’ to that of the current public requesting payment. transport ticketing model. approach to customer mistakes CityLink users are required to If the Final Toll Invoice is not paid and future use. provide identification in the form by the due date, then details are of a vehicle number plate, or sent to the Victoria Police and Victoria Police – speeding alternatively an electronic e-TAG. an Infringement Notice may be infringement compliance issued. This is an infringement and enforcement This means that the CityLink fine of $148 per travel listed on can allow use of the tollway by the CityLink Toll invoice. Speeding is well understood users who are not ‘registered’ as a driving offence and most to use the infrastructure with Once an Infringement Notice instances clearly signposted. the grace of paying for their use has been issued, any questions Road users are identifiable within 3 days before or 3 days regarding payment or how to through their vehicle registration after travel. Without the readily dispute the Notice must be and police have sophisticated available way to identify a user directed to Civic Compliance equipment with which to record (via their vehicle number plate) Victoria (CCV). At this stage, offences. Victoria Police provides it would be more difficult to the only thing CityLink can public information on how provide this level of flexibility. do is provide information official warnings are determined as to why a Toll invoice may which factors are included in CityLink model – have been issued. CityLink an internal review, and how to ways of paying is unable to withdraw or cancel access evidence in relation to an Infringement Notice, as these making an appeal against an CityLink provides a variety Notices are issued by the infringement. A summary of of ways of paying for and using Victoria Police. these is outlined below. their infrastructure. Users have the option to: CityLink also offers the flexibility to transfer a toll invoice to a • register for an electronic CityLink account, or in effect e-TAG; pay for a toll invoice by using • hold an account that is an existing account. registered to their vehicle registration; REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 109
Victoria Police – The following definitions The guidelines state that official warnings are relevant: consideration should be given where relevant to any or all • Exceptional – Nature of Victoria Police has the discretion, of the following during the circumstances surrounding upon review to withdraw an review process: infringement notice and issue the offence, other than an official warning in its place. Special Circumstances, • offence complete and An individual can make an such that when considered, established in accordance application for consideration demonstrates grounds with the standard points of an official warning. Only for leniency. of proof; one application for internal • Extenuating – Nature of • admission of offence; review can be made regarding circumstances surrounding any one infringement offence. the offence, such that • good driving record Each application for an official when considered, leniency as defined; warning is reviewed on a case- would not normally be an • poor driving record by-case basis with factors such option under the defence of as defined; as the circumstances, time of exceptional circumstances, offence, weather conditions, but demonstrates grounds • type of road – dual/divided; traffic density and type of road/ for further consideration • location (residential/ land abutting taken into account. and possible leniency. This industrial/school/intersection); includes medical emergency Official warnings may be • time of day; or circumstances not considered if: specifically covered in policy • traffic density at time • you believe the decision by Official Warning Criteria. of detection; to serve the notice was • Good Driving Record – • speed zone (eg, 40 km/h contrary to law; A driving record that has school zone); not had any demerit points • there is a mistake in identity; • weather conditions; added within the past two • your conduct should be years, and which does not • safety related offence excused as exceptional; or meet the definition of Poor as defined; and Driving Record. • special circumstances apply. • previous convictions • Poor Driving Record – in the past 10 years. Correctly verified infringements determined as: issued for alleged speeds of less (a) 6 or more demerit points than 10 km/h in excess of the in the past twelve months; posted limit may be eligible for or (b) 5 or more infringements an official warning if: in the past three years. • 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. 110 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Victoria Police – Grounds for review are: Victoria Police considers internal review reviews based on special • if you believe the decision circumstances and provides Victoria Police provides to serve the notice was a definition. In relation to clear information on the contrary to law; requests for internal review, considerations given internal • there is a mistake in identity; special circumstances means: reviews. Some offences are excluded from the internal • your conduct should be • a mental or intellectual review process. These are: excused as exceptional; and disability, disorder, disease or illness where the disability, • if special circumstances • drink-driving, driving disorder, disease or illness apply. under the influence of results in the person being drugs, or excessive speed Victoria Police has the power to: unable: infringements under Sections - to understand that 89A-89D of the Road Safety • confirm the issuing - conduct constitutes Act 1986; of an infringement notice; an offence; or • drink-boating infringements • withdraw the infringement - to control conduct that under Sections 61A and 61BA notice; - constitutes an offence; of the Marine Act 1988; • withdraw an infringement • safety work infringements notice and issue an official • a serious addiction to under Section 215C of the warning in its place; and drugs, alcohol or a volatile Transport Act. substance within the meaning • withdraw the infringement of section 57 of the Drugs, notice and refer the matter Applications for an internal review Poisons and Controlled to the Magistrates’ Court. can be made at any time before Substances Act 1981 where the offence is lodged with the Victoria Police will notify the the serious addiction results Infringements Court or before the applicant of the outcome of the in the person being unable: expiry of the period for bringing review in writing. Where a decision - to understand that a proceeding to Court in relation - has been made to confirm the conduct constitutes to the offence. Each application decision to issue the infringement an offence; or for review is considered on a case notice, the enforcement agency by case basis. will notify the applicant of the -- to control conduct which constitutes an offence; Applications for internal due date for payment of the review must: infringement penalty. If a person • homelessness determined elects to have the matter referred in accordance with the • be in writing; to open Court, any review in prescribed criteria (if any) progress is terminated. • state the grounds for review; where the homelessness results in the person being • provide current address unable to control conduct details; and which constitutes an offence. • contain letter of consent, or other evidence of consent, if done on behalf of a third party. REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 111
When an application is made A number of factors are taken A range of common scenarios under the grounds of special into consideration when are listed along with the circumstances, Victoria Police assessing an application. information that is required for is limited to: These include: an internal review. For example in the case of a car breaking • confirming the decision to • if you have a pensioner down the information that is serve the infringement notice; concession card; required for a review is: • withdrawing the infringement • if you have a health care card; ‘If your car breaks down, you’re notice; and • if you meet the criteria expected to take swift action • withdrawing the infringement for financial hardship; to remove it from the location notice and serving an official or have it repaired. Being a • your earning capacity; warning in place of the notice. busy capital city, we don’t • how much you owe; consider cases where there’s If Victoria Police rejects the • whether you have previously an unnecessary delay in the application for internal review driver making repair or towing and confirms the decision to defaulted on a payment plan; or arrangements (for example, issue the infringement notice, attending to other matters first). Victoria Police must refer the • whether you are applying matter to the Magistrates’ as an individual or on behalf If your car broke down, you’ll Court for determination of a company. need to supply a: by a judicial officer. City of Melbourne – • letter from a roadside Victoria Police – accessing assistance provider parking infringement evidence and information (indicating the car compliance and registration, date, time Victoria Police provide enforcement and location of where information on how to access on it was repaired); The City of Melbourne has infringement notices the relevant a well-established parking road safety camera image • mechanic’s invoice system which is signposted stored as evidence in relation (detailing the work performed, and supported by enforcement to the infringement. Images date and time); officers with suitable equipment. in relations to infringements • receipt/invoice for parts The system is also supported by can be accessed at the Fines that were purchased on the information available on the City Victoria website or in person day if you fixed the problem of Melbourne website. at Civic Compliance Victoria. yourself; or
Victoria Police – City of Melbourne – parking • towing invoice if the vehicle payment plans infringement reviews was towed (indicating the car registration, date, time and The City of Melbourne provides Payment of traffic infringement location it was towed from).67 comprehensive guidance on notices can be made using the grounds and circumstances a payment plan. Anyone who for which a review of a parking has received a notice and cannot infringement may be considered. pay the full amount by the due date can apply. However, not all applications are granted. 67 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ parking-and-transport/parking/ parking-fines/request-an- infringement-review/Pages/request- infringement-review.aspx 112 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
The City of Melbourne does City of Melbourne – A payment plan is not possible if: not consider being unfamiliar payment plans with the road rule or the area • the individual is not an acceptable defence for not There are two options for the registered owner complying with the system. payment plans for parking or nominated driver It also does not consider infringements issued by the City of the vehicle; misreading or not seeing the of Melbourne. One is to pay in • a penalty reminder notice sign as an acceptable defence. instalments the other is to seek has been issued in The City may consider cases an extension for the payment. a corporation name; where payment was made To be eligible for an instalment for the incorrect parking bay, payment plan, the individual • an enforcement order particularly where there are must have one of the following: has been issued; or smart meters.68 • the individual have • Centrelink Pensioner previously defaulted The City of Melbourne Concession Card on a payment plan.69 Infringement Review team • Department of Veterans’ undertakes the reviews Affairs Pensioner An individual does not have of infringements. Concession Card to have a Centrelink card to be considered for an • Centrelink Health Care Card. extension of time to pay. This is at the discretion The individual must also be the of the City of Melbourne. registered owner or nominated driver of the vehicle.
68 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ parking-and-transport/parking/ 69 http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ parking-fines/request-an- parking-and-transport/parking/ infringement-review/pages/request- parking-fines/pages/how-to-pay- infringement-review.aspx fines.aspx REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 113
APPENDIX B
Related references www.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://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx https://www.queenslandrail.com.au/forcustomers/plan/travelconditions https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/Fare-Evasion/Your-responsibilities http://www.sydneytrains.info/travelling_with/conditions_of_travel/fines http://infringements.pta.wa.gov.au/TypesOfFines/tabid/585/language/en-AU/Default.aspx http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_reg/ptr2009357/s100.html 114 REPORT OF THE REVIEW INTO PUBLIC TRANSPORT TICKETING COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
DEDJTR 9829_2016