The rights issue

I've got a small holding in AGL, so received the offer to participate in the Retail Entitlement Offer, which in old-fashioned language is a rights issue.   It's to help AGL pay for the Macquarie Generation assets.  

Now, only a week or so ago,  I attended an internal seminar at which the competition issues involved in this acquisition were discussed.   The acquisition was authorised by the Australian Competition Tribunal, which we were told was rather dismissive of at least some of the ACCC's arguments opposing the transaction (the very detailed decision is here).    And the ACCC wasn't very happy, either.  Well, we were being addressed by the lawyer who led the competition team for AGL in this transaction, so I suppose it's natural that she would emphasise the parts of the decision that might be considered as "dismissive".

But I digress.    Of course, everyone has to make their own decision as to whether they want to participate in the offer, and there are various factors involved.  But the tax consequences are almost always a factor, so I was very pleased to see that these issues were addressed in the offer booklet in an up-front way, in the section headed, "Summary of options available to you".   Sure, there's no absolute certainly about the tax issues for any particular investor, but it was good to see the issues clearly and concisely set out, instead of the jargon we so often see along the lines that "tax isn't really our concern, but if you go to page so-and-so (deep in the innards of the documentation), you'll find some long-winded and usually inconclusive explanations".  Yes, the detailed tax dissertation was there as well, but, as I've said, it was nice to find a concise summary readily available.

As a footnote, it's a bit odd that a senior executive of AGL makes some rather "interesting"comments about the operation of the national electricity market just a day or so before the last day for the mums and dads to stump up their money!

Tax time

Perhaps I'm just a masochist, but I continue to prepare and lodge my own tax returns. My affairs aren't particularly complex, and over the years, I have done my best to keep up with changes as they occur, and as they are incorporated into e-Tax  I do admit that it would be challenging to lodge via e-Tax if you had to make a "cold start".  However, I  am associated with a trust that has to lodge a return, and an accountant arranges this.   Based on my experience in this regard, my observation is that the main issue is assembling the required information.  Once this is done, the actual process of inserting it into the tax return is not always as hard as it might seem.

I also note that the ATO now allows simplified returns to be lodged using "myTax".  However, my affairs do have a couple of little "wrinkles"  so I don't come into this category that can use this form, and I have to continue to work my way through e-Tax.
The biggest change this year is the need to create a "myGov" account.   Although this is a new process, I guess it just builds incrementally on the previous arrangements.    Just the same, the process certainly brought "Big Brother" to mind and I worry about the security of portals such as this.   Frankly, I'm not reassured when, after a security breach, I read statements along the lines that, oh yes, there was a vulnerability, but we've "fixed" it (that is, past tense).   I guess the next vulnerability will be fixed, too - after the hackers have demonstrated that it exists!


Another issue with e-Tax is that it's hard to save a pdf file of the final tax return as lodged (or even as a draft).  I think e-Tax expects you to retain the file within e-Tax.  I've experimented with a couple of work-arounds, and the best one that I've come across is a little bit of freeware called "CutePDF writer".   Pity that e-Tax doesn't contain something like this.

The one upside of all this is the nice feeling that I get when, after hours of digging out data and filling things in, I finally press the "submit" button!

Wotif to be acquired by Expedia (2)

I see that the Expedia proposal to acquire Wotif has been given an "amber light" by the ACCC.  It seems that one of the issues of possible concern  is that Expedia tends to charge accommodation providers a higher commission than Wotif, and that if the Priceline group (which is booking.com and Agoda) and Expedia (which includes Hotels.com, as well as others) were the only participants of any scale in the on line travel agent (OTA) market, the  accommodation industry considers that rates charged to hotels would possibly rise.

I skimmed through the very interesting Statement of Issues and noted that the ACCC seems mainly concerned (see paragraphs 47 and 52) with the three largest participants on the OTA market (Expedia, Wotif and Booking.com), and doesn't  place a great deal of weight on other players in the market, such as Zuji (owned by Webjet), Flight Centre, and Orbitz (which is HotelClub.com and is linked to Helloworld).   How this will flow through to the final determination remains to be seen.

What I found very interesting in the Statement of Issues were the descriptions of the participants in the market, as above, and also that Wotif includes lastminute.com.au and travel.com.au.

The ACCC's release contains a reference to Hooroo, as a relatively new OTA.  I hadn't heard of this, so I followed up on it.   It didn't take long to see that it's owned by Qantas!   And they've built it from scratch and it's based in Melbourne.  I may in fact have unknowingly used it when booking through the Qantas site. I've added it to my bookmarks and will be looking at it in the future, but my first impression is that it's got quite a way to go before it can be taken to be a serious player in this market.   It doesn't have much coverage and it's a pity that I don't seem to be able to see the rates charged by overseas properties in their local currencies.

The Statement of Issues also stated that OTAs (except Wotif) generally charge a base rate of commission to accommodation providers for bookings through their portals and charge a higher rate of commission to hotels to appear on the front page of their unrefined search results. I guess we all assumed this, but it's interesting to see it in writing.  Another case of "buyer beware", I suppose.

ATM fees

It seems that ATM fees are very unpopular.   The Age (and other Fairfax media) ran a report about Galaxy Research's finding that people don't like ATM withdrawal fees when they use a "foreign" ATM.    It was mentioned that the typical fee seems to be moving up from $2 to $2.50.

But I'm sorry, I don't see any reason for indignation (at least, in relation to domestic ATMs).  Why shouldn't people be charged a fee when they use an ATM that's not operated by their own financial institution?   To me, it's a bit like walking into McDonalds and asking for a KFC product, or asking Qantas to sell you a Virgin ticket.

I think it's excellent that, if necessary, you can withdraw money from just about any ATM, but what's the problem if you have to pay when you use another bank's machine?  

It's said that people will drive to the other side of town to get petrol a few cents cheaper, so what's wrong with walking a few metres up the street to to get to an ATM operated by your own bank?  Although there are exceptions (small towns and airports come to mind), ATMs tend to be a bit like bananas - they bunch up.    Chances are that where there's one brand of ATM, several others won't be far away.

The use of  linked networks is sometimes overlooked, too.   The NAB and Redi ATM networks can be used interchangeably without fees, as can CBA/Bankwest and Westpac/Bank of Melbourne/St George.  I've seen a few Bankwest machines in 7/11 stores.  Another option is to use EFTPOS and the "cash-out" facility.    But of course the simplest option is just to plan ahead (albeit a little out-of-favour in our "instant gratification" world).

Caught smoking

As I've previously blogged, the train trip from Sydney to Melbourne takes 11 hours or more.   Obviously a long time to go between ciggies if you're a smoker, even if you're not going the full distance.   At many stations, only one or two doors are opened, and even at the bigger stations, passengers are strongly discouraged from getting off the train.  In fact, early in the trip an announcement was made that, because it's illegal to smoke on station platforms, it was no use smokers even trying to get off the train to have a quick light up.

A no smoking zone

Evidently all this was too much for one fairly young traveller on our train.  I happened to be moving about the train at the very moment that the train crew confronted him with the information that a remotely-monitored smoke detector had gone off in the toilet from which he had just emerged.

His denials didn't carry much weight as the crew (and I) could readily smell that he'd just had a cigarette.


He was escorted to the train manager's office, so I don't know what happened.  However, a few minutes later, a "final reminder" announcement was made that anyone caught smoking on the train would be fined and/or off-loaded at the next station.  Being off-loaded?   An option on the train, but wouldn't work so well for an airline!

Credit charge surcharges and "drip pricing"

It's interesting that the ACCC is looking at the "drip pricing" techniques used by some airlines.  Presumably this is primarily directed at credit charge surcharges, of which I have recent personal experience.  There are other charges such seat allocation charges (on Jetstar but not Virgin or Qantas) and baggage charges (usually fairly well displayed?), but these don't seem to be such an issue.

In fairness, however, I thought the late booking deal on Virgin (which allowed payment by direct debit at no extra cost) was acceptable.   I haven't tried booking on Jetstar at short notice, but I wonder why no mention is made in the news report about the actions of Qantas which is "right up there" when it comes to credit charge surcharges (they give you no alternative but to use a card when you're booking close to the day of travel).

More generally, surcharges when you pay by credit card are increasingly a fact of life.  The Reserve Bank has views on the amount of such surcharges and the ACCC has views on their disclosure.

Clearly an important statement in the ACCC's pronouncement on the issue is that the merchant must "ensure ... customers are aware - before they enter into the transaction or contract - that a fee will apply and the amount of the fee."

In short, at the price comparison stage, this statement doesn't require the surcharge to be displayed - unless not to do so is "misleading", which seems to be the point the ACCC is taking in its recently announced proceedings.

Something else that the ACCC could look at, in a similar vein, is Melbourne Airport's practice of publicising quite prominently their "book in advance" car parking prices with no mention of a credit card surcharge at all until the final payment screen was displayed. 

Given that  there was no option at all except to use a credit card to pay, with a 2% surcharge, their otherwise helpful on-line calculator seems to me to go very close to the wind in terms of being misleading.   

Other players who are fast and loose with  the credit card surcharge, or so it seems to me, are car hire companies.  On our recent trip to Canberra, Avis looked as though it would be even worse than Hertz were in Perth:  in the case of Avis, if you wish to pay by a Visa/MasterCard debit card  (link is to FAQs, so it's necessary to select the question) so as not to incur the surcharge, the website seems to suggest that their rule is along the lines that they would take the whole of the hire charge, plus your excess plus $100 for fuel out of your debit card (that is, from your cash) - and refund it to you when they get around to it, perhaps 7 - 10 days after you return the car!  I didn't investigate whether it is quite as bad as this in practice, as needless to say, I opted for payment by credit card (and in any event I don't have the required type of debit card).  But the ultimate irony was......on carefully checking my final statement, in fact Avis didn't impose a credit card surcharge at all!   

Free range eggs

There have been concerns about just what amounts to a "free range egg", and it seems that a standard is to be developed.

About time!  Many of us pay extra for eggs that we believe to be produced under (relatively) humane conditions.   Just the same, the "devil will be in the detail", so we await with interest what the standard will prescribe.  And why wait until 2015?  The fact that are ACCC prosecutions in the wind seems a lame excuse.

Of course, even in the absence of some sort of standard, it's always open to the producer to specify what their practices are.   We recently bought eggs where it was prominently stated on the carton that the 1,500 hens per hectare standard applied.   Very commendable.

On the other hand, another brand, well-represented in supermarkets, gives no information at all on the packaging or its website as to how it defines "free range".

It's also important that statements about the source of foods are accurate.   Hopefully  Saskia Beer  now understands this.






Update:   After posting the above, I looked at the packaging of Coles "Free range eggs".  It states a maximum of 10,000 hens per hectare outdoors, and that the hens are "free to naturally roam and perch".   I don't know about the density but at least the information is there, and presumably the ability to perch is desirable. 

PayWave

"Contactless" or "tap-and-go" cards have been around for a while (Visa call it "payWave").  The Whirlpool forum on the topic has been running since 2009!  So, I accept that I'm a latecomer to this now-popular technology (and I most certainly have not read through the whole Whirlpool forum), but I noticed that when my replacement credit card arrived, there was a covering note explaining that "PayWave" could be used on it.

I was apprehensive about this technology, and then I saw the news reports about increased thefts occurring, evidently by people in search of these cards.  Well, I do my best to secure my cards so that they're not stolen and I'm not overly worried about being hacked (see here), although I do realise that both of these are possibilities and of course I would be distressed if either happened to me.  However, it seems to me the real issue with such cards for many people is literally closer to home, namely unauthorised use by other members of the household.  It's not hard to envisage a situation where another person "borrows" the card, uses it and then returns it.  Hopefully, it won't occur in our household, but many households and house-sharing arrangements are somewhat prone to events of this type.

Imagine the difficulty involved in disputing a single transaction (which occurred while the card was "borrowed"), where other legitimate transaction later (after the return of the card) have occurred!

I decided I would like to disable the feature.  The CBA website tells me that this can't be done.  I visited the bank, where it was confirmed that the feature couldn't be disabled (unless I physically damaged the particular part of the card), but a notation was placed on the file to the effect that, if a PayWave transaction occurs, I'll be notified.

The bank's action is better than nothing, but it seems to me that technology of this nature ought to be available on an "opt in" basis, and to my mind it's unsatisfactory that it's not even possible to "opt out".

The Winter breakfast

I attended Prahran Mission's Winter Breakfast launch.  It wasn't quite as slick as the Salvo's appeal launch, and it was down to earth in a number of ways. One of the main areas that Prahran Mission works in is mental health, and they were up-front about the issues.  Mention was made of the new mental health legislation and some good aspects were described (more "one on one" programs) but that this comes at a cost (no funding for "drop-in centres).   We were told about some approaches to (and an experience of) treatment. It was also said that the rate of use of "ice" in Prahran and St Kilda is the highest in the world!  (Not sure how they work this out, but still.....)

Heath Black spoke of his personal journey through AFL football, and the serious issues that weren't being addressed in the recent past (mental health and drinking, with the drinking obscuring the depression and panic issues that some players had).   The audience was certainly captivated. We were left hoping that more attention is now being paid to these matters - but we still see media reports about "incidents".

I'm sure both Prahran Mission and the Salvos are doing vital work, but it seemed to me that they are approaching things in slightly different ways.  The Salvos, even with their corporate sponsorships and neat uniforms, are, no doubt, getting their "hands dirty", but it appeared to me that the Mission is getting fully immersed in the issues they deal with.

Seniors' parking

An interesting idea, reserved spots for "seniors" near the access ramps in a local shopping centre.  These positions were close to the spots for the disabled and the parents with children!

But, is this enforceable, as (at least, to date) seniors don't have a card to display?   Perhaps the idea is that it will be self-regulating!    After all, who wants to admit that they're unable (unwilling?) to walk a few extra metres?  I for one didn't have the courage to occupy one of the spots! Of course, getting a small discount at the coffee shop is a different matter since that's an opportunity not to be passed up.

The Library renovations

The Council did some renovations at the local library a couple of months ago.   As I said in my earlier post, I'm not quite sure what was achieved (apart from the expenditure of ratepayers' money).  The service desk is now smaller, and a temporary table has been placed beside it to provide an additional position. The revised layout has involved the fiction area being swapped with the non-fiction area, and the newspaper/periodicals area being swapped with the children's area, but frankly the layout doesn't appear any more functional than previously.

But most notably, the previous higher  shelving in the fiction area has been replaced by shelving that is significantly lower.   Because there's been no increase in the total area area occupied by bookstacks, the result is that the library's capacity has been reduced.

No more than 4 shelves, please

Why has this occurred?   I guess that there's some standard for libraries that requires every book to be accessible to a child?    If so, the logic appears to be, well, if the result of having higher bookstacks is that the books on the highest shelf won't be readily accessible to a small percentage of users, then it's better not to have the books at all.   Put another way, unless 100% of users can reach them, then the 95% of users who can reach them can't have them either!  Is this really what "equal opportunity" (or whatever) is about?

What next?   I see that tactile banknotes are on the agenda.   And if it's impracticable to implement these, do we abolish banknotes?

The parking permit zone

A section of our street has been changed from 2 hour parking to "permit parking only".   It's at the end closest to the shops, and, yes, shoppers do (did) park there.     But what's wrong with that?  Of the dozen or so houses fronting the street in this section, almost all have driveways and off-street parking.    Have we reached the point where the rules can be changed to accommodate people who just don't like to have cars parked outside their houses?

I wonder about the motives of the Council.  It's obviously much easier to fine someone for parking in a permit zone than having to come back 2 hours later to check whether they've over-stayed the limit.  The Council seems to have form in this regard.

Most houses in the affected area have driveways

The ward meeting

I'm not sure that I know why I seem to be drawn to attend the Council's ward meetings.  They're painful affairs, characterised by grumpy residents expressing strong views about matters that little can be done about.  Attending seem to be an exercise in self-inflicted pain!  Who'd be a local councillor?

The venue was at Prahran Town Hall

However, I suppose it's interesting to hear about the things that are concerning people, even though the issues are familiar, and the thrust of the answers is much the same. There are a group of matters where the Council tends to say, sorry, but it's out of our control.   Planning matters feature prominently here.  The answer always given is, it's out of the Council's hands, because VCAT overrides us.   Noise issues are sometimes mentioned (here, the EPA's rules prevail over anything the Council tries to do).   And traffic lights that seem to be set wrongly are the fault of VicRoads.

Then there are complaints about roadworks, such as about planter boxes having been installed in the street (in the particular case, years ago), to which the answer is, these are what a majority of residents in the street wanted, so speak to your neighbours.   And then's there's traffic management:  please make it hard for everyone's car except mine.  At the most recent meeting, I'm sure that the essence of one comment was, yes, I want traffic humps in the street, but please put them outside my neighbour's hose, not mine.

One interesting bit of information did emerge.    One of the ward councillors in the last council was Tim Smith who aspires to move into State politics.  Now it seems that the Greens councillor (Sam Hibbins) aspires to follow in his footsteps at the next State election.   I'm not sure that I like the ward being seen as a stepping stone into politics.

Legal Education

I was indebted to an article in the Australian for drawing my attention to a speech by (Victorian) Chief Justice Marilyn Warren  (the Fiat Justitia lecture, a link to the text is here) regarding a number of aspects of legal education in Australia.   Her speech covered quite a lot of ground, and it was good to see these issues getting some exposure.

One of the issues she mentioned is that the universities are producing far more law graduates than can ever be employed as a lawyer.    On a per capita basis, the number is far higher in Australia than it is in the US.  In one sense, this is not all bad news, because a law degree can be a good form of generalist education.  After all, how many arts graduates are employed as historians or whatever their major may have been?   Moreover, if the places in law courses aren't available, they will become even more elitist than they are now (I'm not sure that the brightest VCE students will necessarily become the best lawyers).

However, this seems to have the result that the universities are responding to the demand for places in law courses by turning law into a generalised degree that fails to include some matters the judiciary considers important.  She didn't say this, of course, but my informal observation is that these days there is quite an emphasis on "sociological" subjects, dealing with human rights and similar issues.  But she did say that the way in which subjects are taught has changed, and that the teaching in some core areas is, "at least disappointing and in many respects unsatisfactory."  She also says that it, "it is unfortunate that law students typically spend years studying the law before they find out what it is like to practice law".  And she sends a shot over the universities' bows, saying, "if the university sector persists with the generalist direction a solution for legal practice effectiveness is needed".  She moots various possibilities, including an "admission to practice" exam (akin to the bar exam sin the US) or even a cap on the number of lawyers (the aspect that the Australian chose as the subject of its headline).

Justice Warren's speech is worth reading in its entirety. I hope the law schools take it on board.

On-line reviews

We all know it's an issue:   an establishment such as a restaurant or hotel gets a rave review, but unbeknown to the audience, the review is written or planted by the proprietor.

The ACCC issued some guidelines last November about the matter.  The guidelines are well worth reading and make a lot of sense. 
For example, they address issues such as,  transparency, reviews shouldn't be misleading and that the editing or suppression of reviews is likely to be misleading.    But they also covered matters such as the processes that review sites should follow (including issues about commercial arrangements between review platforms and reviewed businesses), the issue of incentivised reviews and so on.  Reading the Guidelines drew my attention to a range of practices that I, had I thought about the matter, I suppose I would have thought were possible, but I perhaps preferred to think didn't occur often.   Perhaps there's more going on out there than I realised.

The Guidelines have also been the subject of comment in the blogosphere.   Claire Davie's comment seemed particularly good to me.

But, in this era of cyber, how enforceable are guidelines such as these?  Ultimately, common sense has to prevail.  The ACCC's thoughts are only relevant in the Australian context, and the vast majority of the material on the internet is based in other places. Personally, I use reviews to help me understand the nature of the product I am likely to receive.  I don't rely too much on someone elses subjective opinion as to whether a the food or accommodation was "great";  I want to know more practical things, such as, is the accommodation over the road from a noisy night-club?  Was the restaurant so noisy that you couldn't conduct a conversation?    And, the credibility of the reviewer is important.   I don't worry about Jean from Jersey City's comment that she found a hair in the shower cubicle (especially when the track record of  reviewers such as this often show that nothing is ever good enough).   Nor do I take much notice of the one-time-poster who rants on telling us never to use a particular hire car company because he got charged for a dint that he's certain was already there when he picked the car up.

One issue that I'm a bit dubous about is where a hotel chain website actually contains a link to third party review sites (such as TripAdvisor).   Can we always be sure that somewhere in the link process there isn't some smart software that edits or even just ranks these reviews?   Surely TripAdvisor wouldn't stand for this (......well), but software can be smart!

And a final thought:   newspapers!   Look at the travel section!    Is a little line at the end of a glowing review of a cruise or hotel that the writer got a free trip at the end sufficient?

In the park

I didn't like to take a photo of the one-on-one personal training occurring in the park, but it often occurs.

I suppose parks are there to be used, but I admit I had to pause for a few moments to think about where I stood on the issue.

Although you need a permit in Stonnington to have a wedding ceremony in a park, there doesn't seem to be any requirement to obtain a permit to undertake other activities, including wedding photos (unlike the Botanical Gardens - even in the driveways!)

Farewell registration stickers

The era of on-line checking has caught up with the need to have registration stickers on our cars.

No longer will we have to peel the old sticker off so as to make room for the new one.












(EDIT:  and, of course, this closely follows the move to a new series of numberplates)

Security at the station

Our local station isn't exactly a hotbed of antisocial activity in the evenings.  It can be a bit quiet, which some people might find a little unsettling (this applies to the nearly streets, too) but I don't think it comes anywhere near to being thought of as a troublespot.  However, it isn't far from the boundary of a marginal electorate that the Government may struggle to retain in the next election (although its actual location is within a safe seat).

A lonely job?

Perhaps I'm cynical, but I wondered if this was a factor when it was announced that PSOs would be present at the station each evening?  Thanks to P for drawing this to my attention.

I went past to check, and, yes, there they were recently during the evening.

All quiet....

My opinion of the powers-that-be is still poor as a result of the massive downgrading of services during January.  There really does seem to be an issue about the appropriate prioritisation of resources.

The parking contract

Signs have recently appeared at the entrance to a car park associated with a local store.    I know that the land is owned by the store, although it's adjacent to some council-owned parking.    For some reason, however, the owner (a large ASX listed entity) has chosen not to have the Council enforce  the time limits that it wants to apply or to go to the expense of installing boom gates (perhaps because there isn't room for "in" and "out" lanes), but instead has invoked the services of a private contractor.  Note that the legislation (here*) allowing Councils and car park owners to enter into this type of arrangement (section 90D) also prohibits private wheel clamping (section 90C).

The signs, in effect, state that by parking your car there, you've accepted the terms of a "contract", which include an obligation to comply with time limits etc.  If you don't comply, then you're liable to pay "damages".

I see that Consumer Affairs Victoria mention these arrangements, but let me relate the tale of my encounter with the operator of another such car park.

A car registered in my name was on permanent loan to a family member, who was not living with us.    It appears that the car entered the car park concerned and didn't comply with the "terms" of the alleged contract.  I don't know who was driving the car as it may have been lent to another person (possibly a flatmate).   Well over a year after the incident, I received a letter, requiring payment of an amount of money (by way of "damages"), and stating that the delay in writing was because the operator had been required to go to court to obtain an order that VicRoads reveal the registration details of the car.

I'm not suggesting the letter I received was misleading ( see here), but I wrote back stating that I was unclear how the "damages" claimed had been calculated, and moreover, I had not been the driver of the car, as at the time the car was in the possession of a family member, who may or may not have been the actual driver at the time of the incident.  Whoever the driver had been, they were certainly not acting as my agent in entering into any "contract" for the parking of the car.

Since that time, I have been looking forward to putting forward my side of the story to a court when the threatened legal action to enforce the payment (or to find out from me who was the driver) was instituted, but so far I have heard nothing.  In fact, although I haven't checked the dates, it may well be that when the action is in fact taken (!), I'll be able to add a Statute of Limitations defence to everything else!

* Note: There have been minor amendments to these provisions since 1996 (they're part of the Road Safety Act), but it's far, far more convenient to look at the 1996 Act rather than trawl through the immense Road Saftey Act to find these provisions.  The substance remains the same.

Fare evasion (2)

I've often noticed that a lot of people don't seem to "touch on" when they travel by tram, especially in the city.   I commented on this some time ago.

It seems that this isn't "fare evasion" if you've got a "Myki pass":  see section 2.1 of the PTV's Network Revenue Protection Plan.   So perhaps not all those who fail to touch on are getting a free ride.   Additionally, I suppose that others who don't touch on may still be within the 2 hour period of an earlier trip (paid for with "Myki money"), so wouldn't be charged any more for their tram travel even if they did touch on.   But my understanding is that they are still supposed to touch on.

The PTV's plan notes that the failure by Myki pass holders to touch on may contribute to a "domino effect", in that, if the pass holder doesn't touch on, other passengers may gain the impression that they're evading payment. I'm not sure that there's any easy solution to this.   To impose a penalty if pass holders don't touch on seems a bit heavy-handed. 

In the meantime, I notice that continued focus is to be given to measures such as checking disembarking passengers at platform stops.   I noticed this action occurring at a city stop recently, but it was occurring at a quiet time of day (the AOs out-numbered passengers).  Although I can't say with certainly, my impression (albeit based on fairly limited observation) is that ticket checking seems less likely to occur at busy times, and certainly never on busy trams or trains, although AOs do monitor barriers at city stations at busy times.

Further, few if any of the AOs in this particular exercise appeared equipped with Myki card readers.  I wasn't close enough to see with certainty, but at least some of the passengers who were checked appeared merely to show a Myki card to the AOs, who looked as though they were concentrating on passengers with no Myki card at all.  I guess this is better than nothing, but it seems less than perfect.