The IBAC report examined the conduct of protective services officers on public transport. Credit:Rob Carew In another example, reported by ABC's 7.30 program, two teenage boys were repeatedly sprayed with capsicum foam on Springvale train station in July last year after one of them jumped a turnstile. In an ensuing scuffle one of the officers was also sprayed in the face. An ambulance was called to assist the officer, while the boys had water from a cleaner's mop bucket poured over their heads for 20 or 30 minutes in the cold winter air while their hands were cuffed behind their backs. A magistrate subsequently found the officers had no reason to justify the use of capsicum foam, although he did find some evidence that one of the officers had presented false statements and evidence against the boy. In another incident, a 15-year-old girl was roughly handled, handcuffed and charged with assault after confronting seven PSOs she believed were unfairly targeting a homeless man. The officers confiscated her phone after she took a photo of the situation. There are plenty of other examples. Indeed, a three-year study by the Federation of Community Legal Centres Victoria has so far heard from about 10,000 Victorians who shared their views since PSOs were introduced to train platforms in 2012.

The federation's senior policy adviser, Michelle McDonnell, says the intimidating tactics being used by some of these armed and uniformed officers could be preventing commuters from exercising their legal rights. In most situations, PSOs can demand information only if they have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed or is about to be committed. Whether refusing to provide details or allow a bag search provides the officer with "reasonable suspicion" is unclear. In turn, when commuters feel they have been mistreated the onus is often on them to prove they were not acting in a suspicious manner. There are also questions about the complaints process, which is handled by Victoria Police. The reasons for such incidents are unclear. Perhaps it is a lack of training. Perhaps the selection process is flawed. Perhaps some of the officers are merely bored. Perhaps the rules and regulations are flawed. Figures compiled by the Productivity Commission show that in 2013-14, 23.5 per cent of Victorians felt "safe" on public transport after dark, down from 24.2 per cent the previous year, and down from 2008-09, when 28 per cent of Victorians said they felt safe.

The former state government's plan to put two Protective Services Officers on every train platform after dark was deemed so politically potent around the time of the 2010 election that some Coalition strategists went so far as to claim the plan alone all but guaranteed an election win in 2014. Obviously, as history will attest, it didn't. Much like former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani's tough stance against graffiti on trains was credited with a drop in so-called "quality-of-life crimes" in the early 1990s, the presence of the uniformed officers was supposed to have positive flow-on effects for the broader Victorian community. It was partly about "perceptions" of safety. Assessing whether the policy has delivered on this is difficult, given a lack of comprehensive data, although there is some evidence to suggest, if anything, there has been a slight decline in perceptions of safety. Figures compiled by the Productivity Commission show that in 2013-14, 23.5 per cent of Victorians felt "safe" on public transport after dark, down from 24.2 per cent the previous year, and down from 2008-09, when 28 per cent of Victorians said they felt safe. While there has, over the past five years, been a slight decrease in the proportion of Victorians who felt "unsafe" using trains, trams and buses after dark, there seems to be little if any concrete evidence to suggest the presence of PSOs on train platforms has led to a dramatic improvement.

This alone should at least raise questions about the effectiveness of the policy. With 940 officers guarding 207 stations between 6pm and the last train each night, the policy is expected to cost $212 million over four years, not including money needed for station upgrades and marketing. There are major questions about whether this is an effective use of public money. A 2009 analysis of crime statistics by the Public Transport Users Association, for example, found that 45 per cent of assaults on railway stations happened at just 10 locations, and about half of the assaults occurred in the daytime, when there would be no officers present. Arguably, a more efficient approach would be to target crime hot spots, rather than the blanket policy of covering all stations. But of greater concern is the possibility that the presence of the officers on train platforms could in some cases actually be having a negative impact on the perception of safety. The aforementioned examples and others suggests this could well be the case. What is clear, is that the policy is not working as intended. It is only a matter of time before a more serious incident occurs.

A complete rethink is needed - not only to make sure Victorians are getting value for money from the policy, but to ensure it has not come at a far greater cost to public safety and freedom. Josh Gordon is The Age's state political editor.