by Ivan Ray | Dec 11, 2022 | Investigations, Library, Victoria Police Issues
11th December 2022
As reported in the Herald Sun on the 8th of December 2022, Deputy Commissioner Neil Paterson allegedly apologised for an incident involving a Red Cross blood donation worker who was left deeply upset by an encounter with him. It is unclear to whom he apologised.
Simply put, this incident should never have occurred, and we doubt a remote apology will right the wrong. There is no indication that the Red Cross worker has accepted the apology, From the report, we would understand why she may not.
This incident occurred in a café area at Police headquarters where the Red Cross woman approached Paterson. She was there recruiting blood donors, doing her job.
Paterson berated the woman in an area where there would have been large volumes of police employees. As a Deputy Commissioner in Police Headquarters, the imbalance in the encounter was dramatic and for all to see.
Berating a worker rather than taking his concerns to Red Cross in a private capacity, and there are many avenues open to him to do that, is like confronting and berating a junior constable in the suburbs for the behaviour of VicPol during the Gobbo affair.
Mr Paterson has form in this area, having previously achieved comprehensive media coverage for his attack on a Police Sergeant nearing retirement because his religious beliefs oppose homosexuality.
The similarity in his previously exposed incident was also a substantial power imbalance between a Deputy Commissioner and a Sergeant.
Paterson is not employed to peddle his personal agenda. When he puts on his ‘Salute Blue’ suit, he becomes a servant of the Chief Commissioner and an example for other Police to emulate.
It is trite to say that Police, especially senior Police, must not allow bullying. With that, it is also obvious that they should not be bullies. The incidents, while against different people, appear to indicate bullying behaviours. CAA is not saying Paterson is a bully. This is a matter for others to determine, but CAA does say that the behaviours alleged reflect poorly on Paterson and Victoria Police
This incident has broader implications for Victoria Police and the Chief Commissioner.
He was putting the Chief Commissioner in an unenviable position where he is conflicted between supporting one of his most senior executives and his responsibility to maintain discipline and good order in Victoria Police.
Expressing support for Paterson could send a message to all Police that you can use your uniform to pursue personal values with impunity. And you can bet it would end badly if it took off.
This issue will not go away, particularly if other Police are disciplined for inappropriate comments. Their defence will be obvious.
The Chief Commissioner must formally admonish Paterson. This needs to be public, to rebuild the structural damage to VicPol Paterson has created.
Paterson’s behaviour is contrary to the neutrality expected of Police. The CAA believes this behaviour brings ‘the Force into disrepute’ and further feeds the community’s perceptions of the lack of impartiality by the Police, magnified substantially because of his rank.
Would this behaviouir be toleated by Poilce Command for a more junior ranked police memeber.
The way the laws currently stand, only IBAC can take a complaint against any Police Commissioner, and CAA has little confidence they would do anything, making police executives seemingly beyond reproach, creating a protected species.
The Chief Commissioner is, in reality, the last bastion of the enforcement of proper standards. We invite him, as a man of integrity, to publicly rebuke Paterson for his obviously poor behaviour.
We also call on the Government to amend legislation to empower the Chief Commissioner to instigate and investigate complaints against his Senior Officers if required, even if that investigation is overseen by IBAC.
Co-founder and Deputy Chair/CEO of the CAA, a former Police Inspector with 32 years of service in Metro Uniform, Traffic Metro and Highway Patrol, Crime Cars, and CIB. Former Editor of Police Life and long-serving Public Relations Officer of VicPol. Founder and Life Member of the Blue Light Disco movement, Life Member of the Blue Light Federation, and completed his Police career as an Inspector after 6 years as a Patrol Officer. He then ran his own Business for 20 years until retirement. Ivan co-founded the CAA with former Victorian Chief Commissioner Kel Glare, and built the CAA into an influential voice for Victorians.
by Ivan Ray | Dec 4, 2022 | Library, Victoria Police Issues
4th December 2020
Some time ago, the CAA proposed a plan that made each Police Service Area (PSA) Manager Station Commander responsible for providing recognition for any Police Veterans who passed away in their area of responsibility.
The plan was proposed to the Chief Commissioner at a CAA, AGM pre-COVID.
This was linked to a proposed register to be kept for all Veterans. A statewide register devolved to the PSAs based on addresses. The veterans then could be identified should their welfare need attention—a notation made on the register that would enable a phone call or a visit at determined intervals to check welfare and keep them connected.
This would allow the register to be maintained if veterans changed addresses, were taken ill or were placed in care. The likelihood of a Veteran dying and none of his colleagues being aware is minimised.
Additionally, the local PSA manager was to contact and visit the Veteran’s family when they passed away. Apart from condolences, to seek permission to have a Police Officer of a rank, at least one above the deceased, read the Ode at the funeral.
As a mark of respect, the POLICE FLAG (not the Australian Flag) would be made available as a Pall for the coffin.
After the service, the Flag to be handed to the family as a mark of respect in perpetuity. ‘Buried under the Flag they served.’
The Chief Commissioner agreed to these proposals.
We were comfortable that he intended to implement them.
We accepted that during the COVID era, this proposal was unlikely to be followed through completely, but we incorrectly assumed that the components possible under COVID rules were implemented.
We have been shocked by the recent outpouring of dissatisfaction by Police Veterans and serving members on Social Media regarding the treatment of Veterans who recently passed away being routinely ignored by VicPol
The Chief Commissioner’s wishes were blatantly ignored.
We have then reviewed some other matters that the CAA has sought and gained support from the Chief Commissioner and have not been implemented.
- A proposition that all Veterans living in a PSA should be identified and recorded at a Station should their welfare need attention.
- A formal Police school program.
- A program where an executive Officer would formally thank all members on retirement for their service. (An initiative raised by the CCP).
- Recognising Police who were called up for National service. (This project is advancing, and the Dedication Service for their Honour Board is scheduled for February 2023 at the Police Chapel).
These issues are distinct from the myriad of other matters we have put to the Chief in submissions.
It is of very great concern that the Chief Commissioner can express a view, and the organisation fails to respect that view and follow through on it.
We have no reason to believe that the Chief Commissioner was not genuine in his views expressed. We are, however, very concerned that others have developed a strategy within the organisation to push back or ignore his wishes. We assume that is unless they agree with them.
A prime example of the cart leading the horse.
That is no way for an organisation like a Police Force to operate, and it raises the concern of what other matters approved by the Chief Commissioner the organisation has chosen to ignore.
The Chief Commissioner is the person who takes ultimate responsibility for the performance and function of the organisation, not those who seem to wish to undermine him.
The apparent evolution of insurrection within the upper echelons of Victoria Police undermines the Chief Commissioner’s authority; it is as embarrassing as it is wholly unacceptable.
This indicates that a flawed executive ‘Committee’ approach holds sway over the Chief Commissioner. Once that happens, the influence permeates down, meaning everybody can choose to follow or not follow the Chief’s directions. Discipline folds, and the ability to function as a cohesive body evaporates. This is not good for Policing or the community.
The first evidence of a problem we identified, was when we reflected on the Police COVID Response.
The Chief was at pains to prefer the issue of cautions instead of prosecutions for COVID breaches and took the unprecedented step of intervening personally to issue warnings.
That was until the quantity overwhelmed his capacity to deal with each case, and the principle of a caution was lost. Somebody or some people at a very high level in VicPol usurped the Chief Commissioner’s authority, and the control of the police response was overtaken by others, perhaps explaining the debacle that followed.
It now seems clear that some see the CCP as just a figurehead, and the faceless few are the power of the organisation.
The CAA is of the opinion that some seem to be using their position to remove the CCP to gain power for themselves.
This thinking is as flawed as the mechanism they have established to undermine the CCP. It will still be there if they succeed and can be just as easily used against them.
Senior police must unite in support of the Chief. And that is not just lip service, but function.
When senior officers do not display ethical leadership, this flows throughout the organisation, down to junior police.
The CAA is concerned there is a serious problem somewhere in the upper echelon.
Those responsible for undermining the Chief Commissioner should step aside or be removed from their positions; a purge would be justified and is, in our opinion, necessary.
Co-founder and Deputy Chair/CEO of the CAA, a former Police Inspector with 32 years of service in Metro Uniform, Traffic Metro and Highway Patrol, Crime Cars, and CIB. Former Editor of Police Life and long-serving Public Relations Officer of VicPol. Founder and Life Member of the Blue Light Disco movement, Life Member of the Blue Light Federation, and completed his Police career as an Inspector after 6 years as a Patrol Officer. He then ran his own Business for 20 years until retirement. Ivan co-founded the CAA with former Victorian Chief Commissioner Kel Glare, and built the CAA into an influential voice for Victorians.
by Ivan Ray | Oct 29, 2022 | Investigations, Library, Road Safety, Victoria Police Issues
29th October 2022 First Published 9th Feb 2016
‘It was claimed by Victoria Police that the G-Tag proposal submitted in 2016 was assessed and piloted, however, the pilot was not of this proposal but a proposal with similarities that seemed suspiciously like a cover for a feasibility assessment for a commercial venture.
The G-tag has a far wider application, and the pilot did not facilitate testing of the concept.
Police at the time did not have the capacity to grasp the concept and to their discredit never bothered to check with the authors for clarity.
The current administration of VicPol seems more adroit than past administrations, and we hope for the benefit of all Victorians that they seriously consider this proposal.’
– The G-Tag
Save Lives Reduce crime Cost positive and Make Victoria a leader as an innovative State.
Introduction
For many people, their car is their most important and valued asset, and to have it stolen is devastating. Unfortunately, motor cars, whether stolen or not, are also commonly associated with crimes including hit-run, robbery, drugs, rape, murder, domestic violence and now Terrorism.
The relatively new experience of motor vehicles being used as a weapon either against Police or as a weapon of mass destruction, terror-related or not, is a recent phenomenon. However, the introduction of this new level of violence In the West has brought a new urgency to the G-Tag.
The G-Tag, when fully implemented, is the only stratagem that will stop vehicles from being used as weapons.
The Bourke Street massacre should be justification alone for introducing the G-Tag. Unless you live under a rock, we know that it will only be a matter of time before we experience the devastation of truck or car bombs, as is all too common elsewhere in the world.
The multiple killings, countless injuries, millions of dollars of theft and massive damage is caused because current legislation is focused exclusively on the driver, not the vehicle. Until that changes, the vehicles available to drivers will continue to wreak havoc.
The most creative solution dreamed up thus far by Government and Police in Melbourne is strategically placed bollards and reinforced concrete planters. A little underwhelming. They will create safe areas (but only from cars). Still, the vulnerability of people will then be focused on the areas unable to be protected, including every intersection in Melbourne at peak pedestrian times when pedestrians in large numbers cross are exposed.
There were 4,567,314 vehicles (ABS Data and includes all vehicles) Registered in Victoria in 2015 – a huge and valuable state asset that needs to be protected.
The traditional view is the risks posed by the motor car should be managed by legislation focusing on the driver. Unfortunately, the success of this approach is problematic at best, with very limited success.
‘The best way to reduce any crime is to increase in the perpetrators’ mind the likelihood that they will get caught – penalties in themselves have limited impact because the perpetrator does not commit the act to get caught and never expects to get caught.
When the probability of being caught fails to dissuade, we need the ability to intervene to minimise the impact of the behaviour.
Authorities (Police) should be able to safely slow down or stop particular vehicles in the interests of public safety and/or law enforcement,’
Without diminishing the current Law and Order response, there is a need to think through and discuss alternatives – that alternative is the vehicle.
GPS Tracking
GPS tracking is widely used in the community; the devices record and re-transmit their own location to a satellite-based global positioning system. These re-transmitted signals allow the identification of the vehicle, location, and route it has and is taking. It also communicates the vehicles speed.
That route can be recorded for days or weeks, and capable of identifying which vehicle was driven in a particular location at a previous time. This ability will allow Police to identify the vehicle used in a crime. As important as the current location of the vehicle, is the historical routes the vehicle has taken, which perhaps has more investigative value.
An example, and there are many, would be a drive-by shooting in the early hours. Witnesses can usually supply the time of the shots; with a G-Tag, the Police could identify which vehicles were driven in that location at the time given.
Central to this proposal will be the fitting of tracking devices to every vehicle. Although this forms part of the first stage of this proposal, it needs to be seen through the prism of advantages to the community, a safety and Crime Prevention/Minimisation strategy, albeit that an economic case may be produced for the system raising alternative revenue streams for the Government, a user pays system for registration. The latter is the most equitable method of raising revenue.
Setting the case for part one of this proposal – the G-Tag
The advantages of developing a GPS locating system, or G-Tag, for the entire Victorian road fleet will be no small feat; however, the return will be enormous.
Theft of Motor vehicles and machinery –
With a G-Tag, stolen vehicles can be located quickly; the focus is on the property, not the perpetrator, which will serendipitously lead to perpetrators being detected rapidly. This will lead to a reduction in insurance costs. This would also reduce the demand for Police time and assist in arresting perpetrators.
G-Tags will influence the perpetrators knowing the chances of getting caught have escalated and may dissuade many would-be offenders.
In Australia, 49 vehicles are stolen and processed for scrap metal a week and one in four cars stolen are never recovered – $103 Million estimated value of cars never recovered. In addition, there are estimated to be 5 million cars on Australian roads that do not have immobilising technology. (Source -National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council.).
In Victoria, 14366 vehicle thefts were reported according to VicPol statistics – in 2014. In 2015 that number increased to 17090, an increase of 19%. The National average of vehicles not recovered is 31% (This figure could be substantially higher when including vehicles recovered damaged beyond repair – burnt out etc.) so extrapolating those figures to Victoria, over 5000 vehicles disappear every year, or nearly 100 every week.
What the statistics do not show is the hardship caused and the danger posed to the community
Community safety – a G-Tag will assist
- Victims of Domestic violence-. They can be better protected by tagging perpetrators’ vehicles in the G-Tag system to warn Police of the perpetrator heading toward the victim. In addition, using postcodes to quarantine victims will enable Police to intervene when postcode boundaries are crossed by perpetrators breaching a Family Violence Order—alerting Police to reduce the risk to the victim.
- Missing Persons-. G-Tags can locate vehicles of missing persons before self-harm. Suicidal victims are generally found after their demise when the family have contacted Police over concerns, but Police driving around searching every nook and cranny has historically been demonstrated as ineffective and usually does not end in locating the individual before it is too late.
G-Tags will have the ability to save lives with the chance of getting professional help to desperate people.
Rural application- The application in Rural and remote Victoria is very sound; consider being able to locate a tractor on a large remote property or a driver overdue to destinations, particularly in times of natural disaster. This will also reduce the number of unnecessary searches.
The applications of G-Tag technology can be extended to include watercraft and recreational vehicles.
Technology instead of human resources. The thousands of man-hours expended by emergency services, particularly Police, can be dramatically reduced in multiple circumstances by the G-Tag Policing will become more efficient and effective, reducing pressure on Police resources.
Criminal activity – Terrorism Investigations would have the advantage of monitoring vehicles with G-Tags without intrusion to better understand the risks posed by suspects.
The use of vehicles as a weapon in Terrorism is commonplace in the current war zones. It is likely to appear in Australia at some stage and being prepared will save lives.
- Criminal Behaviour –There is a current spate of home invasions where perpetrators physically confront victims in their homes by forced entry to gain access to keys to steal high-end motor vehicles. This type of activity (home invasion) is on the rise; there is a substantial risk of serious harm, if not the death of a victim. The ability to track these vehicles by G-Tag and immobilise them is very attractive to the victims and Police.
- Illicit Drugs must be transported in vehicles at some stage. Access to G-Tag technology will provide invaluable assistance in managing the importation and trafficking of drugs.
- Hoon drivers –can be monitored and removed from our roads. Known hoons’ vehicles can be tagged in the G-Tag system, and an alarm indicating when like tagged vehicles are identified by the system to be congregating can give Police the opportunity to intervene before the dangers escalate.
- Police Pursuits – This technology virtually eliminates the need for pursuits, and G-Tag disabling the car by G-Tag reduces risk to the Community, the Police and even the offender.
- Emergency vehicles – can easily and reliably be located and managed when civil emergencies occur. E.g. incident managers could recognise the precise locations of fire appliances during bushfire outbreaks to direct them to where they are most needed – or away from impending danger.
- Arial surveillance – Currently undertaken by the Police Airwing, there are limitations with availability and response times. The G-Tag will not replace the need for Arial Surveillance as a Policing tool. Still, the G-Tag will significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Air Wing, reducing operating costs.
- Legal implications – The data recorded in the G-Tag system has evidentiary value, as do E-Tags and Security Cameras. The potential for the improved data available from G-Tags will provide data of strong evidentiary value for Prosecution and Defence in equal benefit, further improving our judicial system.
- Revenue streams
The advantage of this system is it would allow the Government to use this mechanism to charge registrations on a user-pay basis, the most equitable mechanism. In addition, implementing part two of this proposal would eliminate the need for enforcement of recalcitrant individuals by placing the vehicle in ‘limp home’ mode until the financial liabilities are met. This capacity could also be extended to other civil liabilities related to traffic.
Setting the case for Part 2 of this proposal using G-Tag.
The first part of this proposal using converted E-Tag’s will only reach a percentage of the Victorian fleet unless a case can be presented for voluntary take-up of G-Tags based on the E-Tag system, although not totally limiting will reduce the overall potential of the program. However, the advantage of converting E-Tags to G-Tags will ensure a rapid introduction to the program.
Part 2 introduces more sophisticated G-Tags (technology is currently available) that are hard-wired into the vehicle’s electronics and fitted where they cannot be easily removed or interfered with. This technology adds a new layer where the vehicle’s electronics can be activated remotely to put the vehicle into limp home mode (reducing its top speed to 80KPH) before activating the engine immobiliser to halt the vehicle. The only limitations will be that certain vehicles do not have the limp home mode and would be stopped at a safe place or shut down when stationary.
The upgraded G-Tags would need to be fitted to all new vehicles, pre-delivery (amending Vehicle Standards)and second-hand vehicles as part of the roadworthy process. In addition, a moratorium would be required to set a reasonable time that all vehicles must comply, similar to other safety initiatives, including seat belt introduction.
Stage 2 will allow Police to intervene to stop the commission or continuance of a crime, which is the primary role of the Police.
The issue of re-establishing the vehicle’s functionality when recovered, or is no longer a threat, is again a technical issue that should not prove insurmountable. If it can be switched off, it can be switched back on; it is just a matter of protocols.
The cost debate
There is a cost, but as this is an innovation, the technology development costs of G-Tag would be well offset by marketing the initiative interstate and overseas. In addition, a fee for service arrangement, assisting set up and a fee for intellectual property would generate substantial income.
Part of the development costs could be covered by the Insurance Industry and TAC, who both stand to gain considerably. In addition, there would be nominal cost recovery from the users in installing a device into the existing fleet – manufacturers would be required to fit the device pre-delivery on all new vehicles.
An offset to the toll operator’s contribution (modifying E-Tags)will be the income generated when tracking devices are fitted to the Victorian fleet to include the E-Tag function in the G-Tag, effectively the E-Tag would be redundant.
With savings achieved to the State economy, the overall cost will be well offset. In addition, recurring fees would be partly recovered by beneficiaries, namely Insurance companies, Toll operators, TAC and the user.
Car owners will have to bear some costs, subsidised for Welfare recipients, but the price should not be prohibitive, somewhere under $200.
The proposal to introduce a pay-as-you-use system for registration, third-party and comprehensive Insurance and fuel excise currently avoided by the increased uptake of Electric Vehicles will contribute to the setup and recurring cost of the system.
The system could, therefore, potentially protect innocent victims from financial hardship due to vehicle damage – Potentially, the initiative could be cost-positive.
Technology
Anybody who owns a smartphone or has a Satellite navigation device is acutely aware of the power and application of technology.
Currently advertised on the internet for $35 is a tracking device that can be attached to a vehicle and linked to a smartphone. The technology exists and is small and relatively cheap.
With the increasing sophistication of motor vehicles and their reliance on computers to manage their engines, an opportunity exists to intervene in a vehicle’s performance. A large part (and increasing) of the Victorian fleet are vehicles that have an inbuilt “Limp Home Mode” in their computer systems designed to protect the engine from further damage should a fault be detected
It is a matter of connecting the dots.
- If we can identify a vehicle using GPS locating technology by a G-Tag, we only need to develop a mechanism to access the vehicle’s computer via the G-Tag to activate the “Limp Home Mode” or the vehicle” Immobilisation technology”. A SIM card is the solution.
- By designing and fitting an aftermarket, G-Tag to attach to the vehicle’s electronics, the vehicle’s function can be remotely managed.
- The power supply for the G-Tag is then secured for the vehicle’s life.
- The simplest method to communicate with vehicle electronics is by a SIM card in the device using the mobile network to communicate with the car’s computer.
The Issue of Privacy
In the 1980s, a very vocal minority saw themselves as the keepers of our privacy, objecting to installing the eight CCTV cameras for a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Melbourne. They vocalised on the prying eyes and the abuse that would occur should the cameras not be removed immediately after the conference was finished- “It’s a Police State” was the group’s mantra.
Their plaintive cries are now somewhat humorous when we look around at the number of cameras that watch us daily, but there is no community concern as it has been demonstrated that they serve the greater good, and law-abiding citizens do not care if they are watched. Indeed, governments actively encourage more expansive use of CCTV in public places, and the take-up of private CCTV systems – including those monitoring public spaces – is impressive.
This initiative has a distinct advantage over CCTV cameras. The Cameras have a deterrent effect and assist with identifying perpetrators, but they cannot stop or prevent the continuation of a crime – the G-Tag can.
Anybody worried about the movement of their vehicle being monitored should realise there are over 5 million vehicles in Victoria, so nobody would have the time, the resources or the interest to monitor every vehicle – it will be enough just monitoring vehicles that are of particular interest- law-abiding citizens just hide in the crowd.
Furthermore, although not common knowledge, most high-end vehicles sold in recent years already have this technology and are used as part of the aftermarket service provided by the manufacturers as a mechanism to update electronics and identify the need for roadside assistance.
Effectively a reasonable percentage of the population drive around oblivious that their movements are being or are capable of being monitored by a third part.
Impact on Judicial processes.
Implementing this system will provide the Judiciary with an alternative to sentencing offenders (by regulating vehicle use), particularly for the less serious traffic infringements and criminal activity in some cases.
Currently, lives are ruined financially and otherwise by fines and driving restrictions that cause offenders to lose employment and the capacity to pay fines.
Unintended double jeopardy can ruin many young people’s lives. Correcting bad behaviour by bad outcomes lessens, and in certain circumstances destroys the chance of future compliance. Instead, in desperation, it can lead, particularly young people, towards crime and drugs to escape what they see as a hopeless situation from which they see no escape.
The G-Tag system can be used to manage the use of a vehicle to certain roads and/or times to allow Offenders to continue in employment, enabling them to pay the fines but still having their mobility curtailed to serve as a punishment.
We are not suggesting this facility become run-of-the-mill but for cases where a driver may exceed .05 after a reading shows residual alcohol or drugs in the low range. Or where breaches of Licence offences and registration matters can be managed without ruining lives.
The increase in penalty recovery would justify offenders retaining employment and avoid forcing people onto welfare and damaging the States productivity.
Recovery of Civil compliance fines could also be improved. For example, a vehicle disabled by G-Tag would rapidly encourage compliance.
System Security
There will need to be legislation that includes safeguards for privacy and safeguards against tampering with the system, either the physical equipment or any signal emitted.
Conclusion
The G-Tag is a proactive and novel proposal, but there is a myriad of far more radical ideas that once seemed farfetched that are now accepted as the mainstream norm, world wide web, television and the telephone!
We now accept security cameras as a way of life and the dreaded speed cameras as an acceptable inconvenience that serves the greater good.
It will take leadership and innovative thought to implement this proposal; however, the advantages to the community make it a worthwhile project.
This is an innovation that will save lives commensurate with its implementation,
- Minimise Police pursuits by number and duration.
- Enable the arrest of mobile criminals safely.
- Monitor criminal activity.
- Determine the identity of perpetrators when the crime was not witnessed, but a vehicle was involved (historical footage of the scene)
- Tag domestic violence perpetrators and protect victims with an electronic shield.
- Reducing a criminal’s ability to use a vehicle in committing a crime.
- Reducing criminals’ ability to burn stolen vehicles to hide DNA.
- Locate missing people intent on self-harm.
- Increase revenue through greater enforcement of civil compliance.
- Locate and save people in natural disasters.
- Reduce police resources in trying to locate missing persons.
“I have worked hard to own my car, and if it gets stolen, I would be very happy that it could be located and disabled as soon as it is reported (minimising damage to it). It would be a bonus that the low life that did it was caught.”
A view that the overwhelming majority of Victorians would share.
An additional attraction of this technology is that it will allow a user-pays system to be developed in lieu of registration and other taxes as a reliable and equitable mechanism to tax road users.
Recommendation
That VicPol and Government establish a working party to prepare the business case for this proposal, including the fiscal imperatives that will make this proposal not only practical but cost positive. An approach ANZPAA and Standards Australia should be considered as well as drafting legislation to establish a G-Tag Authority to develop the technology and design the model for the ongoing management and operation of the system.
Ivan W. Ray
Chief Executive Officer
Community Advocacy Alliance Inc
Co-founder and Deputy Chair/CEO of the CAA, a former Police Inspector with 32 years of service in Metro Uniform, Traffic Metro and Highway Patrol, Crime Cars, and CIB. Former Editor of Police Life and long-serving Public Relations Officer of VicPol. Founder and Life Member of the Blue Light Disco movement, Life Member of the Blue Light Federation, and completed his Police career as an Inspector after 6 years as a Patrol Officer. He then ran his own Business for 20 years until retirement. Ivan co-founded the CAA with former Victorian Chief Commissioner Kel Glare, and built the CAA into an influential voice for Victorians.
