The latest news as it happens from Canberra and the surrounding region.

Life flows here at Yarrah REGISTER INTEREST IN STAGE 3

Local news from the Canberra region.

Home loans made clear Phone 02 6190 1280

News and analysis of APS, ACT public sector and diplomatic corp policy, politics and people.

Thought-provoking pieces written by local Canberrans and community leaders.

Resolution of conflict within communities, workplace, families

Business and technology stories from the Canberra region.

Expert strata, facilities and building management services

Your one-stop destination for the latest Capital region property and real estate news.

Property management you’ll feel good about

Sporting news from the ACT and Capital region.

Come home to your Jerra

The people, places, pets and passions that give our city life.

Where to eat, what to drink in the Canberra region.

We're open! Wed to Sun, 8 am to 6 pm

The stories behind the people and places that make Canberra what it is.

Music, festivals, charity events - everything that’s happening in the Canberra region.

Open every Sunday 9:30 am to 2:30 pm

A 40 km/h zones in Civic. Less income, smaller fine? Photo: File.

The so-called Civic speed trap has been the catalyst for another call for income-based fines, not just for speeding but a range of other offences and charges.

Although clearly marked, the 40km/h zones have caught thousands of drivers oblivious to the signs and in denial that the city’s main thoroughfare could be reduced to such a crawl.

But an assembly committee recommended some waivers be issued due to financial hardship, prompting the ACT Council of Social Service to call for a fairer system of penalties and charges that would reflect a capacity to pay.

It’s not that revolutionary, having been a part of the northern European justice system for many years, although England and Wales tried it for a short time, but neither magistrates nor the public liked it.

The scheme was replaced by requirements that magistrates consider an offender’s means when imposing a fine, just not according to a mathematical formula.

READ MORE Calls for income-based approach to fines as inquiry recommends waivers for vulnerable motorists

In Finland, the higher the income, the more you pay, but ACTCOSS appears to be focused on reducing the impact on the Territory’s 40,000 low-income households, so don’t expect to see a $100,000 speeding fine any time soon.

The principle is much like that of progressive tax rates.

There is no doubt that a fine of hundreds of dollars will have a disproportionate impact on someone of low to average means than the many high-income earners who enjoy life in the national capital.

But there are already ways to mitigate the damage.

In 2020, legislation introduced by Greens MLA Caroline Le Couteur enabled payment plans and community services in place of fines to ease this burden.

And drivers with excellent records – a clean sheet of at least five years – can already apply for a fine to be waived, and speaking from experience, that does happen.

READ ALSO Plenty of question marks about the Raiders in 2022, starting with club legend Jarrod Croker

The question is, by how much would income-based fines dilute their deterrent value, especially if they were not raised for higher-income earners, remembering that the goal is road safety not generating revenue.

The penalty still needs to inflict enough pain to hopefully change behaviour, a point that can be forgotten in the quest to make it easier for those doing it tough.

So to be workable and send the same message to people of differing means, the range of fines would need to increase across income groups.

The administration of such a scheme based on income quintiles would throw up its own injustices at its arbitrary cut-offs.

It would be a courageous government indeed that did this.

The best social justice advocates can hope for is a system that is flexible and discretionary but still retains its essential integrity and purpose, which is to support, in this instance, the safe system of road usage we all enjoy.

The bottom line is that if you don’t want a fine, obey the road rules.

Why not both? Have a minimum amount for fines, while those on higher incomes or with larger asset wealth are fined more. The only ones who would complain about fines are those who do the wrong thing.

Reducing fines just disincentivises those on low/no incomes not to worry about the law, while the wealthy also don’t care because they have no problems paying $200 for a ticket.

The proposal is totally unworkable because the ACT government doesn’t know how much people earn, so cannot fine people on the basis of unknown income. Your income is only known to yourself, your employer, your accountant and the ATO. People are not going to tell the ACT government what their true income is so that it can then work out size of their fine. It is a ludicrous idea. ACTCOSS should stop hounding ordinary members of the community and remember that the more we pay in fines the less we have to donate to charities and the less sympathetic we will be to their next fund raising campaign. Here is a better idea. Instead of paying the traffic fine to the ACT government, give people the option of nominating a charity to receive the fine they get from a traffic offence. But that won’t happen because the ACT government would lose all that juicy revenue from its revenue raising cameras.

They could ask the ATO / Federal government. Solve your problem?

Do you wish to argue that private charity provides more infrastructure and better social welfare than governmental action? Any good national examples?

Apply the same principle to things like covid isolation. The public housing facility I am in was placed in isolation last year. Zero attempts made to enforce any sort of compliance, seemingly because nobody could have paid a thousand dollar fine anyway. Not surprisingly, it spread and a two-week isolation became a month-long isolation. But hit them with say $100 fines each time they were found breaching isolation and making them pay, that would have bitten home more.

System is ridiculous only in the ACT

Belinda Spouncer maybe review Finland, Switzerland, UK where the policy works there!

🙂 Where in that article does it say that the fines will be lowered for anyone? I bet you the cost of a speeding ticket that what will actually happen (if anything) is that fines will increase for high income earners. And if you think about it fines are not currently a deterrent for such folk anyway, so I think the idea makes some kind of sense.

Another idea that makes sense is to ensure that rules and fines are kept to a minimum, that their linkage to unacceptable, unsafe behavior is clear, and that the amount is commensurate with the severity of the transgression.

Because people who break the law and are poor don’t deserve punishment

Truly rich people pay very little tax as they have no reportable income. A tiered system would be complicated nonsense.

A fair fine would be points based.

Scott Nilsson agree so many problems using taxable income… ie what do you do with taxable one -offs ie capital gains, taxable super death benefits, taxable redundancy, taxable components on home owner saver scheme. But taxing the rich would be a pretty good… why not base it on assets – that way finally the super rich landowner retirees start contributing to revenue.

Shaun, then someone’s nanna on a pension cops a big fine for living in her crumbling 3 bedder that has a land value of $3M. Should they have to sell their house to pay the fine? Many of the truly rich have few assets in their name.

Tiered systems are complex. As such, loopholes will allow those with the means, to not pay anything, and those without the means, to be let off (or they won’t pay) – this is as it is now.

Ultimately, it is the size of the fine that is unfair. Lose points and then if lost enough, get the idiot off the road. But then, I am not after the revenue generated by fines 😛

Scott Nilsson If Nannas got a place worth $3m and collecting the pension – seems reasonable she should investigate a reverse mortgage, fix up the place, get off the pension, and pay more of her share to contribute to society.

Once the points exceed a certain figure crush the car used in the offence even if a Mercedes or the Pms BMW. Bet that would fly like a pink pig in the triangle. LOL

He has a point if we take away fines for low income earners people will abuse the system because they know they won’t be heavily penalised for speeding ect

LOL typical rich person take on it. “I don’t want speeding fines to be a financial burden to me so I’ll project my concerns by pretending this proposed law is about letting poor people off with softer punishment.”

If you’re on a salary over $80k you can afford to pay more for your traffic violations than the person with casual employment who’s lucky to make $40k in a year.

12 points on your license, $40k difference in disposable income. That means each point is worth at least $3,300 in fines more than what the low income offender is charged.

We don’t expect people on low incomes to pay the same amount of income tax as people on high incomes. Fixed fines are a small deterrent for people with above average incomes, and a large deterrent for people with below average incomes. Income-based fines would provide more equal deterrence.

Aaaah yes, the old income tax argument.

So going down that route, where do we stop?

Do we make wealthier people pay more for fuel because they can?

More for the same food?

Should we have to slide our ATO linked Australia Card through the Self Service machine at the supermarket so it knows our income before it calculates our shopping bill?

More for a cup of coffee or a beer?

Where are the results from the studies showing that we have a problem with people on higher incomes getting numerous fines because they are easy to pay?

Those studies may exist so it would be interesting to see them.

Is there really a problem?

Aaaah yes, the old fuel/shopping/coffee/clothes argument. Since the cost of these items does not stop wealthier people from over-consuming, is Spiral arguing in effect that we should make fuel/shopping/coffee/clothes free for wealthier people. And where are the results from studies (if they exist) showing that we don’t have a problem with people on higher incomes getting no more fines than less wealthy people?

No, I’m arguing those items should be the same price for everyone, as they currently are.

As should be the penalties for breaking the law.

The claim that people on higher income find it easier to pay fines may be broadly true but is often wrong. And what counts as a high income driver? 80K, 100K, 150K 200K, 500K?

And there has not been any evidence presented yet that we have a problem with high income drivers accumulating lots of speeding fines because they are trivial to pay off.

That may indeed be the case, but surely it is best to make an informed decision.

Laws brought in to try and penalize the rich are more likely only going to hurt the “middle class”.

So provide the evidence. Propose income brackets and which levels of fines apply to them.

And as we often hear when discussing topics such as Climate Change: Follow the Science.

Rhys, time to quit working, sell everything and go on the dole… starting to feel like we’d be better off this way!

Income based Fined, sprouted by ACOSS, are the politics of hate, envy and the legalised theft of money from the ‘rich’ so the so-called ‘poor’ can get away with paying less.. It professes division, envy and hate for often what are, our high achievers who also earn more. The reality is that the Demerit Points system is the great equaliser on cars, its the points that determine when you do or do not drive, and the fine, is the same for everyone, because thats how equality in a society works.. Not ‘equalised’ results as ACOSS would like to have, where someone who doesn’t work, gets the same benefits as someone who’s dedicated their life to their work… thats socialism, but with misery up top… and in the end, Aussie high achievers would just leave for where they are appreciated, not hated and hunted and treated differently because they did well..

Exactly- pointless idea – you break the law, suffer the consequences

So if you’re unemployed there’s no fine?

Make up the dollars with community service hours- things like cleaning up the suburbs including removing graffiti

The ACT Sentencing Act 2005, under Purposes of Sentencing, says in 7(1)(a): “To ensure that the offender is adequately punished for the offence in a way that is just and appropriate;” It seems to be a guide, even though we are not discussing criminal law here. Carry on, everyone.

Demerits affect the people with more money disproportionately as it affects their earning capacity. So reduce the demerit points for people with more money.

punishments should be the same for all. It’s obvious a fine is less punishment for people with more money: in fact it’s just peanuts for many – clearly unequal and unfair

Lol come on fines only exist to make the rich richer

Chris Patajac mmmm, I’d like to hear how you think that works.

Tharren Kingston-Lee eg fines for speeding go back to the state, which is then used by politicians for lobbying and budgeting etc, keeping their mates happy…

So, you want a legal definition where we have different punishment for the same crime? Get out of here.

Me doing 50 in a 40 should never cost more or less than any other person breaking the law and doing 50 in a 40. Ever. The crime is the same irrespective of income.

Speeding = fine Not speeding = no fine

and the same punishment for everyone

a fine is a bigger punishment for those with less money. that’s obvious.

No it should increase for those who can afford it

Ian Jackson I can’t say you’re wrong

How about no fines at all

Hiw about following the rules income based fines is ridiculous why should someone pay less for the same crime

Tax is just not enough aha why not take peoples time away not money

How about income based land rates then, and regos. Where would it end??

how about we make a start on fairness?

John Salmond how about not breaking the laws…..then income doesn’t come in to it, can’t get more fair than that.

The Northbourne Ave cash register! Since becoming a 40km zone thousands of people have been fined, and zero has been done to genuinely limit speeds/make it ‘safer’. We’re this Gov genuinely wanting to limit speeds, speed humps would have been installed years ago – REALITY, they are focused on the revenue here and are quite happy for things to continue as is.

Nope. I get the perspective but no matter what your income a fine hurts your sky rocket but it is meant to change the behaviour. Speed kills.

Agree do it like in Sweden.

If tax was appropriate across all pay ranges, I’d be fine with this, but when you get fisted for making actual money, pass.

Yes – all monetary fines need to be sufficiently high to hurt people in the old hip pocket – otherwise they will not act as a deterrent, if people think “I’ll just park illegally here & I’m happy to pay whatever fine I receive”.

I hope it’s based on my net salary. hehehehe

“Sir, I have just checked your speed at 75km an hour in a 60 km zone. And for the purpose of the traffic infringement notice, are you aware it’s an offence to be financially successful?”

Brilliant idea say 2% of last gross income before Cayman Island and House investment deductions kick in for the Super rich?

Fines should be based on loss of points and the potential to lose one’s licence rather than the ability for someone to pay $

I agree. The loss of licence points is a bigger deterrent than the fine in many cases.

The fines in australia are enough as it is everyone should be subject to the same fine .

I’ve always thought fines should be means tested a $400 fine to some people may mean they can’t pay the rent or put food on the table yet for someone earning big dollars it’s not even a deterrent

Lyn Morris then don’t break the law.. simple.

The entire regime for traffic related fines (not just speeding) is very different in Finland, yes. My understanding is the offence has to be “excessive” before the fine’s linked to income. Although let’s not forget their roads are covered in snow and ice half the year.

The problem with ACT fines don’t just hurt they can cripple people. Compared to other states ACT is brutal. Smallest fine being over $100

This is a good idea, I’m heavily negatively geared so my taxable income is very low so I’d be paying the minimum amount for fines.

It would be a good idea for parking fines because the expensive cars just treat the fines as petty cash costs.

One of my kids, who lives in another City, chooses to pay parking fines rather than parking fees, because overall, he reckons it’s cheaper.

He doesn’t own a home; just rents an apartment. Luckily for him there are no demerit points for illegal parking!

If I’m in the negatives do I end up making money?

Pippy Brown, but then you’ve earnt an income and would get fined accordingly. Nice try Pip.

Jeffrey Brown equilibrium… my account will trend towards zero until eventually it comes to a stop.

He’s speeding take his money. Uhh He’s speeding give it back… … and take it again … refund… …

Im all for the tiered fine system where low-incomer get fine at a lower-current rate, and the high-incomers get fined at a higher rate.

Would need to be thought out well because you could have a low-incomer boy without a financial care in the world racing around in Daddy’s BMW or Porsche and they have their lifeline from their parents…

Is this a solution looking for a problem?

Do we have real evidence that people on higher incomes are speeding more than people on lower incomes or is it just anecdotal evidence?

It would be interesting to see a breakdown by things such as income, occupation, type of vehicle, ethnicity etc.

Is it wealthy people frequently speeding? Or are some occupations frequent offenders? Or owners of certain vehicle types? Or is the message not being effectively communicated to people from some ethnic groupings?

If the goal is to reduce speeding and save lives, then it is important to get an accurate view of where the problem is.

Presumably these studies have been done as it would seem unwise to try and improve the system if the problem isn’t what the improvements are targeting.

I can see it now. A study of this magnitude could employ every unemployed person in Canberra from now until the end of the decade and by the time the data was analysed and put thru various committees, the recommendations would be out of date due to changing population dynamics and obviously, people flocking to catch Light Rail or ride push-bikes.

Much simpler just to treat everyone the same and fine as many people as they can.

@kenbehrens – but by the end of the decade, all the former unemployed will have had a steady job and can afford the higher fines!

Calls for a new government to change / increase the speed limit back to what they were.

This stupid socialise policy is the stuff of failure, when you target the ‘rich’ they hide their wealth, often overseas in low tax countries we call ‘tax havens’.. if you target the rich then it’s a race to the bottom as everyone tries to hide their income so they can pay less than the next guy… we’re supposed to encourage achievement and success, not penalise it in a clever country.. we actually want more millionaires, investors and successful businesses in our country NOT less…! Everyone still gets the same 12 points, maybe get rid of monetary fines and up the points you lose for each offence? That would be fair…

Hmmm I think that’s a difficult one, perhaps they need to be assessed on a case by case basis. Driving history, circumstances, location, time etc. FYI these 40km zones are ridiculous, they appear to be in place to protect texting walkers.

That would be so complicated and costly to implement, and open to rorts anyway.. far easier to rely on the 12 points everyone gets like we do now, simple, cheap and effective and fair..!

While they’re onto it, they should consider income-based parking fees as well.

Perhaps you should consider how much tax these people pay, in comparison to those who pay SFA, get welfare payments and then still want more.

Everyone gets the same amount of points, That’s fair for everyone.. charging someone more because they supposedly habe more, just makes rich people hide their money overseas, then it’s a race to the bottom as everyone tries to be poorer than the next person so they can pay less.. we’re supposed to encourage achievement and success for the country to achieve and succeed..

Steve Rakic You try living on less than $23,000 per year, then see how tough it is for people who have had no choice to be on a disability pension. Some people are so entitled .

Luke Robbie these the same people who can afford mobile phones, alcohol and expensive cigarettes?

A fine for some is a wake up call. For others its not . Why make it easier for someone who disobeys the road rules .

just chuck everyone in prison for a month…that’ll fix it…..people who litter can get a month in clink too

So, leave current fines as a minimum.

Maybe issue warnings first when you change an entire geographic zone from the speeds they have been for the three decades I have been driving there.

And more speed sign, like everywhere! If you’re really interested in safety!

So this “fairer system” could be applied to other offences? DUI, dangerous driving, running a red light – the list is endless. Here’s a thought. How about keeping the fines the same for the poor but increase the amount for the rich – if the committee wants to be fair…

Fair, is when people are treated equally, targeting someone because they have achieved more in life isn’t.. this would mean doctors pay more than other people, why would any society incentivise non-achievers..?

Scott Abela I take your point about equal treatment but not all rich people have achieved more in life. From my observation. a high proportion of the rich have “achieved” nothing more than wealth – and it’s usually at the expense of others.

Who says income based fines should be about reductions for the poor? If a pensioner is going to lose a week’s rent for speeding and get evicted, why not make a Manuka Millionaire homeless for the same offence?

Daniel Gerrard Exactly! Then only the gravity can be felt by everyone equally 👍

Isn’t the point that for 20% of the population, they don’t hurt anyway?

Everyone still gets the same level of points, That’s equal for all..

And maybe if you’re from a minority group or on the dole, we can actually pay you to speed. 👍

How will they know what your level of income is? Access your details from the ATO or rely on honesty?

Trying to fix the problem of unfair impact from fines rather than the cause of the problem which is severe wealth inequality, but no one wants to talk about that brcause they got theirs. It’s easy for people to say don’t speed, sometimes accidents happen though.

Ash Latimer Accidents sure do happen…especially when you speed!

Just don’t break the rules and you won’t be fined

Shouldn’t be changed at all. If you speed you get a fine. If you don’t want a fine, then don’t speed. Simple

Should be wealth based, not income based.

デ スティーブ How do you pay a speeding fine with wealth?

デ スティーブ For a fine? Assets like superannuation can’t be liquidated early for the sake of a fine. Maybe sell your house for a fine??

Murray Brissett, depends on the fine, if people are holding millions in assets but no cash it’s up to them to choose what they liquidate. The usual trend is the more wealth people have, the more cash peoples have

デ スティーブ I see the trend reversed. Think super and home ownership. Anyway it won’t happen so it is all speculation.

Murray Brissett, not arguing the proportion is greater, but the actual amount.

So the millionaires who hide their income and assets under a company name would get the smallest fines.

Mark Hughes they will be eligible for “reverse fines” probably like negative gearing and franked dividend credit?

Or you could just follow the rules.

What if you are unemployed?

Ivan Haider plenty of people leeching the dole system..

Ivan Haider if you are unemployed you won’t have to worry because you won’t be able to afford a car.

This is the idea, it’s ACOSS who want the rich to pay and the poor to get a free ride… it’s the politics of envy, a simple points only system is fair to all but ACOSS just want more money from so-called rich people.

Trevor Coutts that assumes you have never had a job

Steve Rakic And plenty of wealthy people who do not pay their fair share of tax by rorting the system. Who do you think costs the country more? Give you a hint, it’s not those on benefits.

Reducing the dollar value of fines and increasing demerit points would be a much fairer way. But then the government would miss out on the revenue.

still complaining i see. Nurse of the ACT have worked there butts off during the covid crisis, while… View

Onelia Herriot Don't confuse team leaders and supervisors with management. Management are the ones who… View

Alene Yorke no I don’t Alene. On the other side of town to me. View

Hopefully you will find out 😉 View

Sounds a wonderful story. Probably a wanna-be train driver, a Thomas the Tank Engine love! A grandad… View

Julie Kidd I think you are overestimating the intelligence and care factor of the average voter. View

Lots of what aboutery in this thread. If you don’t think that Katie Gallagher has represented the ACT,… View

Onelia Herriot what the difference/nit picking with "federal health or state health? I can't find any… View

Netty Atkins federal health or state health? I can't find any references to there being a federal Dept… View

Covid spread fast and far. Extremely contagious. The restrictions saved a lot of lives. Compare the… View

Would you vote for an independent candidate?

Subscribe to receive the latest local voices straight to your inbox.

Copyright © 2022 Region Group Pty Ltd ABN 85 168 887 232. All rights reserved.

the-riotact.com | riotact.com.cn | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com | mygungahlin.com.au

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.