Right: Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu rides the rails in Melbourne. After being elected on a platform which included provision of armed guards at railway stations after dark, Mr Baillieu has expressed his determination to press ahead with the plan, despite initial problems.
.
Arguments against placing armed protective services officers on Melbourne train stations after dark
1. Train assault statistics do not warrant the placing of two protective services officers on Melbourne train stations
It has been claimed that a close study of the incidence of crime on Victorian metropolitan train stations does not warrant placing two armed officers on every station at night.
The Public Transport Users Association (PTUA) has analysed the 2009 crime statistic. This analysis has shown that 45% of assaults on railway stations occur at just ten locations.
The president of the PTUA, Mr Daniel Bowen, has stated, 'While people are most concerned about safety on the train system at night, the reality is that about half the assaults happened in broad daylight.'
This finding has led some critics to question the utility of restricting the protective services officers to patrolling stations after dark. Further criticism has been directed at the decision to man all stations equally, when the crime statistics indicate that there are stations that do not seem to need that attention.
Mr Bowen has noted, 'Just ten stations accounted for 45% of the incidents reported. Altogether 85 stations had recorded incidents of assault, but 116 had none.'
In an opinion piece published in The Age on April 9, 2011, John Silvester ridiculed what he appears to believe is a massive misuse of resources.
Silvester wrote, 'Let's do the maths. There are roughly 200 railway stations in Melbourne. The 2009 crime figures published by The Sunday Age showed 45 per cent of assaults occurred at just 10 stations: Flinders Street, Dandenong, Broadmeadows, Footscray, St Albans, Ringwood, Bayswater, Frankston, Southern Cross and Thomastown.
In broad terms, fewer than 400 assaults are recorded across the network and only half take place at night. So we will employ nearly 1000 armed guards to try to stop 200 reported assaults. And in 116 stations there were no assaults at all. Zippo.'
2. These officers will be inexperienced and may not be adequately trained
It has been noted that as this is a new scheme, all the 940 protective services officers to be employed over the next four years will be new to the job. They will therefore have little or no experience in the handling of firearms when dealing with the public. Unlike the police force, they have the advice and example of more experienced officers. Critics of the proposal claim that under these circumstances there are likely to be accidents and inappropriate responses which could result in either injuries or fatalities.
The length and quality of training these officers will receive has also been questioned. Protective services officers' training will run for only eight weeks compared with 33 weeks for police officers. Civil libertarians and others have argued that this is insufficient given the hazards inherent in what they will be required to do.
Emily Howie, from the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, has stated, 'The concern over protective services officers is that they are not as well trained as police. Firearms training is not the be-all and end-all. What is even more important is that they are trained in non-lethal ways to resolve conflict.'
Victorian Shadow Minister for Police, James Merlino, has argued, 'The Government wants to create a second tier police force, effectively police officers on our stations but they're simply not providing the training that's required. It's just inadequate for the role they're supposed to do.'
Liberty Victoria president, Spencer Zifcak, has similarly stated, 'My concern is that ... you might get a situation where these officers panic and someone gets shot. Public safety has to be the priority and properly trained police officers are the best option.'
3. It will be difficult to recruit protective services officers
It has been claimed that it will be difficult to find an adequate number of suitable people to take on the 940 positions the Baillieu government has pledged will be filled. This is in part because the new State government has also promised to increase substantially the number of officers in Victoria Police.
In a Herald Sun editorial published on March 25, 2011, it was noted, 'Recruiting and training almost 1000 protective services officers to guard railway stations will be difficult...
As well as the protective services officers expected to guard stations, Mr Baillieu promised that 1700 extra police would be put on trains before the next election.
The police academy is unlikely to meet those numbers ....'
It has been suggested that only lower calibre candidates are likely to be prepared to take on a job with no promotion prospects and relatively poor conditions.
This point was made by Steve Price in an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on March 31, 2011. Price argued, 'Police on the cheap, if you like -- people who can't meet the tougher criteria for Victoria Police, prepared to work for lower salaries and on shifts that will encourage people needing second jobs.'
In an opinion piece published in The Age on April 9, 2011, John Sylvester made a similar point. 'In the next four years police will have to find thousands of recruits both to cover the government promise of 1700 more police and to fill holes left by retirements and resignations. So why would you want to be a PSO when you could be a new constable on $52,000 with a real career path?
And if you can't qualify to join the police, should you be allowed to strap on a semi-automatic and head out on railway patrol?'
John Silvester has also suggested that recruitment problems will be on-going as the turnover rate among protective services officers is likely to be high. He writes, 'Police confidently predict the turnover will be dramatic as PSOs become disillusioned with dangerous and boring shift work. Therefore it is not just a commitment of 940 but an annual drain as hundreds more will have to be recruited to replace those who run screaming into the night.'
4. There are already community concerns about police use of firearms
It has been noted that there are already community concerns that Victoria Police force use their weapons too readily with the result that there has been needless loss of civilian life. The same concerns have been voiced, though with greater urgency, about the proposed introduction of armed protective services officers on Victorian railway stations.
In an Age editorial published on April 9, 2011, it was stated, '
The officers are to be issued with Smith & Wesson semi-automatic pistols, and will receive only eight weeks' training in how to use them. There are already concerns about how the police, who are better trained, use firearms, sometimes leading to avoidable loss of life. The risk that station guards might use their guns unnecessarily must be at least as great.'
In June 2009 the Office of Police Integrity released a Review of the Use of Force by and against Victoria Police.
Among the review's key findings were that police need to learn how to communicate and negotiate with people affected by mental illness or under the influence of drugs or alcohol; that officers need to have alternative methods to the current confrontational approach that relies heavily on capsicum spray and firearms and that Victoria Police management needs to establish a culture of safety first, risk assessment and risk management that will avoid or minimise the use of force.
Critics are concerned that if there are issues with how Victoria Police use their weapons these are likely to be even worse among protective services officers who have less training and who will be less experienced.
5. The Victoria Police Association, some Metro authorities and the Rail, Tram and Bus Union are opposed to armed protective services officers on trains
The Victoria Police Association has reservations about the new armed protective services officers. These officers have over-lapping functions with Victoria Police yet have neither the same training nor the same powers. Currently, for example, they have no arrest powers. Even were their powers to be extended, this would not remove concerns regarding their capacity to exercise them.
The Police Association secretary, Greg Davies, has claimed that the Baillieu government's protective services offers policy was a 'logistical nightmare for the force and should be reviewed'.
Greg Davies has also suggested that the employment of PSOs does not represent good value for taxpayers' money. Mr Davies has urged the Baillieu government to 'modify' its election promise. He prefers a model that targets Melbourne's most violent stations with more transit police and far fewer protective services officers. Senior Sergeant Davies said a first-year police officer receives about $4000 more than a PSO but represents far better value as a crime deterrent.
The chief executive of Metro Trains, Andrew Laesa, criticised the PSO proposal when it was announced in August 2010. Mr Laesa called for unarmed authorised officers, who would perform tasks, including checking tickets, across the system.
Mr Laesa expressed concern at the risk to public safety that armed PSOs on platforms might represent.
On April 11, 2011, Metro announced it had ordered a risk assessment of the use of armed protective services officers at railway stations.
Rail, Tram and Bus Union state secretary Trevor Dobbyn said Metro had agreed to the union's request for an assessment and said the operator would look to 'identify and mitigate' the risks involved.
Mr Dobbyn said, 'Putting two armed PSOs on to every station raises a whole lot of safety questions and we're concerned how it will operate. If those firearms are used, of course, that's a worry to our members. We've never had this on the system before.'
6. The protective services officers have limited powers and are not adequately resourced
It has been observed that the protective services officers will have limited powers and are not adequately resourced.
In a Herald Sun editorial published on March 25, 2011, it was noted, 'The guards' jurisdiction covers only the railway station and adjoining car park. Once an offender steps beyond this boundary the protective officer is powerless. Baiting these officers after stepping outside the car park perimeter is likely to become the next dangerous game to be played by troublemakers.'
In addition to these officers limited authority, it has been claimed that they will not have adequate facilities to allow them to perform their function. Some will be operating out of stations with no toilets, no running water and no shelter.
These points were made by Ashley Gardiner in a news item published in The Herald Sun on March 26, 2011. Gardiner stated, 'New details of the PSO policy reveal that guards' authority will be restricted to within the station precinct, including platforms and car parks. PSOs might need to hitch a ride with passing police for a toilet break. They have only common law powers to make citizens' arrests. No funding will go to new facilities, such as shelters.'
It is also unclear how these PSOs will access their weapons. Members of Victoria Police collect their weapons from the police station out of which they work, where the weapons are kept under secure conditions. This cannot be the case for PSOs as it is unlikely that their weapons could be stored safely at metropolitan train stations.
In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on March 31, 2011, Steve Price argued, 'The Government still hasn't worked out how to get these people to their assigned train station because, like sworn police, they can't travel to work with their gun...
Solutions being examined include fleets of mini-buses taking these people to and from work twice a day, seven days a week -- because it would be too dangerous for them to travel on the very trains they are protecting.'