CustomGuides.net
Morris Iemma
 
New South Wales under Premier Iemma - story number 1
 
I have a very respectable young (27 y.o.) friend who, when he got off the train at Strathfield Station one night recently, was accosted by three male RailCorp officers, (they seem to work in packs of three,) who told him he looked like someone who had been reported to have been causing “trouble” at Blacktown station, and, who, on this basis, demanded he give them all his personal details - full name and address and so on - which he did. Although he had got off a train that had come from Penrith through Blacktown, he had not been at Blacktown Station - something the officers apparently accepted. And that seemed to be the end of the matter.
However, five days later, he got a Penalty Notice in the mail alleging he had committed an offence, the details of which were given as follows - “Refuse to comply with requirements of an authorised officer” and imposing a penalty of $100.
I sent a letter to Vince Graham, the CEO of RailCorp, outlining the fact of this matter and asking, “Is it possible for him, (my friend,) to find out what those “requirements” were, as he tells me that he has not the slightest idea what this is all about?”
I got back an incredibly low grade response from a Jim Andrews which talked about a whole lot of irrelevant matters but didn't’t answer my one simple question in any way.
I emailed back protesting about this, and then got some responses from Jim Andrews’ boss, a Matthew Dakin, from which these things emerged.
Firstly, that RailCorp’s basic position was, “See you in court!” There was no way of sorting this out by sensible correspondence, (mainly because it seems there was no way to get though to anyone in RailCorp with the intelligence and decency to properly handle a matter like this.) Of course, in going to court, my friend would have had two choices. Firstly, to act for himself. If he’d done that, no doubt he would have been, as a 27 year old with absolutely no court experience, up against a highly experienced court person, and the full resources of Morris Iemma’s State in general, fighting to try and keep RailCorp’s reputation, such as it is, intact. Secondly, to get a solicitor or barrister to act for him so that there was some sort of “level playing field”, which would no doubt have cost him at least $800, none of which he would have been able to get back, even if he had won - Mr Iemma’s laws would make sure of that.
Secondly, that the only requirement that my friend could have been guilty of refusing to comply with was giving his full name and address - which he had obviously done, or how else could RailCorp have sent him their Penalty Notice! Even though I’ve now got a lot of experience with these things, I am still flabbergasted from time to time with some of the things Mr Iemma’s employees get away with, mainly, obviously, because they know they can get away with them.
Thirdly, you couldn't help thinking that a sneaky sleazy revenue raising exercise by Mr Iemma and his cohorts was what was involved here.
The bottom line of this is that if you are ever stopped by RailCorp officers alleging you look like someone who has been causing “trouble” somewhere else, (even though you haven't been there,) and you end up with a Penalty Notice for $100 for not complying with the “requirements of an authorised officer”, (even if you HAVE complied with the requirements,) just pay the $100, (even though you may end up with a “record”,) and smile - you have no choice, it’s just part of living in Morris Iemma’s New South Wales.
 
 
EMAIL US
 
26 Sep 2007