Canberra gets new fine payment system

Jim Jones said :

Ben_Dover said :

secretly you wish you were out doing rufty-tufty meaningful work with a gang of blokes..

I can only assume that you work in some sort of homoerotic construction crew.

yes, images of the band YMCA came to my mind too…

IP

IrishPete said :

Can’t speak for anyone else, but the rest of the stereotype you present doesn’t apply to me.

No more than any of the “probably upset because Margaret Thatcher’s dead, because you can’t save money any more by paying the kids’ HECS fees up front, by having to pay increased taxes for DisabilityCare, and by the Baby Bonus being means tested. stereotypical, unwarranted and unwanted slurs you started dishing out apply to me.

So why not debate the topic rather than a”play the man, not the ball,” hmmm?

IrishPete said :

Also I’m glad you didn’t try to deny that Australian society is inherently Socialist and has been for decades. (

I’m glad you didn’t deny that the ocean is rather salty, that politicians lie, that blue cheese smells of old socks, and a thousand other rather obvious things.

Did you have a point there? Or were you just making things up that other people haven’t said, in order to win a little debate with yourself?

Ben_Dover said :

secretly you wish you were out doing rufty-tufty meaningful work with a gang of blokes..

I can only assume that you work in some sort of homoerotic construction crew.

Ben_Dover said :

Ok, my go.

“Get over it, you’re only upset because labour is falling apart a the seams, and you’re feeling guilty as you have a nice white collar job in an unproductive government department, and secretly you wish you were out doing rufty-tufty meaningful work with a gang of blokes..

Sorry, the only thing Left and Labor have in common is the letter L. These days Left starts with a G.

Can’t speak for anyone else, but the rest of the stereotype you present doesn’t apply to me.Also I’m glad you didn’t try to deny that Australian society is inherently Socialist and has been for decades. (Trolling? Moi? No, just running out a line with a baited hook on it… there’s a difference)

IP

IrishPete said :

Get over it folks. You’re probably upset because Margaret Thatcher’s dead, because you can’t save money any more by paying the kids’ HECS fees up front, by having to pay increased taxes for DisabilityCare, and by the Baby Bonus being means tested.

Amazing how those on the left seem to think it fine to cast aspersions as to what they believe others are thinking.

Ok, my go.

“Get over it, you’re only upset because labour is falling apart a the seams, and you’re feeling guilty as you have a nice white collar job in an unproductive government department, and secretly you wish you were out doing rufty-tufty meaningful work with a gang of blokes..

Who wooda thunk the RiotACT would be a forum for an existential debate on jurisprudence?

Get over it folks. You’re probably upset because Margaret Thatcher’s dead, because you can’t save money any more by paying the kids’ HECS fees up front, by having to pay increased taxes for DisabilityCare, and by the Baby Bonus being means tested.

It’s called Socialism. It’s been in place for decades. And it’s what differentiates us from certain wild and individualistic animals.

IP

I’m enjoying all this outrage and imagining Ben_Dover, red-faced, shaking his fist at the Heavens.

I’m enjoying all this outrage and imagining DrKoresh, red-faced, crying his eyes out, and shaking his fist at the Heavens at the plight of these poor, poor, people having to sell a kidney, or one of their children into slavery, in order to pay the parking fine, while rich people taunt them by lighting cigars with $100 bills.

Damn there’s some short sighted people commenting here.

Fact 1 – Fines are imposed by a judicial system as a punitive measure far less severe than jail. It is not meant to send people to jail, nor is it supposed to create a situation whereby if you can’t afford a fine, you shouldn’t drive. Many people cop fines driving to work so they can pay their bills in a city with a high cost of living.

Fact 2 – Fines, as they currently sit, penalise the poor more than they penalise the rich. I earn 100k, so a $110 fine a drop in the bucket for me. But if I earn under 50k and have 3 kids? Why is the poor person (and their kids) penalised more heavily than a rich person.

Fact 3 – the justification for punishing traffic infringements isn’t really punishing because they deserve it – punishment doesn’t protect against fatalities. The justification for punishment here is deterring people – this is going to be no less effective in doing that.

Congratulations to the parliament for finally recognising this inequality and providing other options. The ability to pay in installments or pay it off another way is not going to give people carte blanche to break the law – you’re either stuck still paying the money and copping the demerit points anyway, or you have to go do community service work like a common pleb.

So what’s the problem here?

I’m enjoying all this outrage and imagining Ben_Dover, red-faced, shaking his fist at the Heavens.

I think this is probably a good thing. Fines are meant to be a deterrent, not the catalyst for possible unemployment, bankruptcy or homelessness which is all this initiative is trying to make sure of. The fine still gets paid and we save more revenue by sheer virtue of the fact that we won’t be forcing people on to welfare.

As a special favour to everyone pissing into the wind about how unfair this is, out of the goodness of my heart I’ll accept the terrible burden of all your money and you too can live the high life as a poor person, you silly wankers.

I was thinking about this the other day. I lost my Westfield ticket and had to pay $30 to get out of the parking lot. I know a lot of people who would be likely not to have $30 to their name a lot of the time, especially after they’ve done their groceries. Wonder what you’d do?

I wonder if the people saying ‘it doesn’t matter if the traffic fine means you miss a meal’ have ever missed a meal because they had to pay a traffic fine? It isn’t fair that for one person a parking ticket means less wine and for another it’s their electricity getting cut off. If people who weren’t poor got their family’s week’s food budget taken because they parked somewhere a bit too long, I think they would want alternative ways to pay it off too. You realise there are some people in Canberra who can’t even afford their $5.80 PBS scripts some weeks?

howeph said :

Nobody “gives” the advantage. It is an inherent advantage gained simply by not being poor. It is just a fact that fines represent a higher penalty to poor people.

So does the price of petrol, the cost of a bag of chips, and your daily bread. You are makeing an appeal to emotion, it doesn’t work.

howeph said :

If your finding it “emotive”, then may I suggest it’s because your feeling uncomfortable about your conservative stance on this issue?

Again, you try to emotionalise, and use that sad old strawman; “if you feel this way it must be due to you being emotionally affected,.. Quite wrong, my pointing out that you are verging on emotional blackmail in your sob stories of the iniquities of this” justice” indicates no discomfort on my part. Please don’t attempt to psychoanalyse strangers on the net, it’s not good practice.

.

howeph said :

I don’t agree. You are conflating the differences between “law” and “justice”; or simply just ignoring the “justice” part by unilaterally declaring it as irrelevant. Please consider:

The system of law is a set of rules of conduct of any organized society that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated.

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, religion and/or equity. Justice is the result of the fair and proper administration of law. It is the quality of being just; in conformity to truth and reality in expressing opinions and in conduct; honesty; fidelity; impartiality or just treatment; fair representation of facts respecting merit or demerit.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Relationship_between_the_law_and_justice]

I consider it, and dismiss it. Fine words butter no parsnips. It is after all, speeding and parking fines we are discussing here, not hanging matters.

howeph said :

I would have thought that all people, regardless of their “political stripe” would support a fairer, more just, system. Am I wrong?

On this matter yes. Minor fines like speeders and parking tax, are seen as fair. Don’t speed, you won’t get fined, don’t park illegally, you won’t get fined. Simple.

dungfungus said :

80% of gay French Muslim schoolchildren proves you are wrong!

Why pay fines? You don’t pay, your licence gets suspended. You get caught with a suspended licence, you go to Court, get a non-conviction order, and just keep driving.

Ben_Dover said :

howeph said :

What we have here is a blatant use of weasel words, and an attempt at emotive reasoning.

Please refer to definition number 4 – “a practical advantage given to one over others.”

Most people – because they have more money – have a practical advantage over poor people, with respect to paying the same fine for breaking the same law. In this way fines are *preferential* to the wealthy.

Ben_Dover, I try to be unequivocal and concise with the words I use on this forum. You will not read “weasel words” from me. Nor is this “an attempt at emotive reasoning”. It is applied ethics.

Ok, so who “gives” “rich people” this practical advantage? Are they given the money to pay the fine?

No one gives “rich people” a “practical advantage”, they already have the ability to pay the fines.

Nobody “gives” the advantage. It is an inherent advantage gained simply by not being poor. It is just a fact that fines represent a higher penalty to poor people.

Ben_Dover said :

You posting is clearly an attempt to use emotive reasoning as you refer only to “rich” and “poor” people, and not to the vast majority of us, for whom the fine would be an inconvenient loss of cash, but liveable with. Are we given a practical advantage?

Yes we have a practical advantage. And no I don’t only refer to “rich” and “poor”. See the text that you quoted above:

howeph said :

Most people – because they have more money – have a practical advantage over poor people…

And also in comment #32 I said:

howeph said :

I’m in the fortunate position, like most people, that paying instalments – or doing community service – would be more inconvenient than just paying it outright

Note that I’m talking about “most people”.

Ben_Dover said :

By playing on the “rich” and “poor” and “practical advantage”, ( ie. emotive language,) as if we lived in Dickensian England, you are appealing to emotion.

The phrase “practical advantage” was raised by you, in comment #43, not me.

I haven’t just talked about “rich” people as I’ve just demonstrated above.

If your finding it “emotive”, then may I suggest it’s because your feeling uncomfortable about your conservative stance on this issue?

Ben_Dover said :

Fact of the matter is, the fines are there for a purpose, they are a way of making breaking that law have consequence…

Agree.

Ben_Dover said :

… the fact that the fine may have greater consequence for someone on low wages is [ir]relevant.

I don’t agree. You are conflating the differences between “law” and “justice”; or simply just ignoring the “justice” part by unilaterally declaring it as irrelevant. Please consider:

The system of law is a set of rules of conduct of any organized society that are enforced by threat of punishment if they are violated.

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, religion and/or equity. Justice is the result of the fair and proper administration of law. It is the quality of being just; in conformity to truth and reality in expressing opinions and in conduct; honesty; fidelity; impartiality or just treatment; fair representation of facts respecting merit or demerit.[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Relationship_between_the_law_and_justice]

Ben_Dover said :

The fact that some may be able to pay them out of pocket change is irrelevant. The fact that for some it means not buying a couple of bottles or wine, or going out for a meal that week, is irrelevant.

I agree. The difference of impact between the truly very rich (i.e. pocket change) and the majority of us (i.e. a couple of bottles of wine or skipping a restaurant meal) is of no consequence compared to the potential effects on the truly vulnerable.

Ben_Dover said :

Fines are fines, to try to socially engineer payments as a way of mitigating and manipulating the middle class guilt of green voters is wrong.

I would have thought that all people, regardless of their “political stripe” would support a fairer, more just, system. Am I wrong?

howeph said :

What we have here is a blatant use of weasel words, and an attempt at emotive reasoning.

Please refer to definition number 4 – “a practical advantage given to one over others.”

Most people – because they have more money – have a practical advantage over poor people, with respect to paying the same fine for breaking the same law. In this way fines are *preferential* to the wealthy.

Ben_Dover, I try to be unequivocal and concise with the words I use on this forum. You will not read “weasel words” from me. Nor is this “an attempt at emotive reasoning”. It is applied ethics.

Ok, so who “gives” “rich people” this practical advantage? Are they given the money to pay the fine?

No one gives “rich people” a “practical advantage”, they already have the ability to pay the fines.

You posting is clearly an attempt to use emotive reasoning as you refer only to “rich” and “poor” people, and not to the vast majority of us, for whom the fine would be an inconvenient loss of cash, but liveable with. Are we given a practical advantage?

By playing on the “rich” and “poor” and “practical advantage”, ( ie. emotive language,) as if we lived in Dickensian England, you are appealing to emotion.

Fact of the matter is, the fines are there for a purpose, they are a way of making breaking that law have consequence, the fact that the fine may have greater consequence for someone on low wages is relevant. The fact that some may be able to pay them out of pocket change is irrelevant. The fact that for some it means not buying a couple of bottles or wine, or going out for a meal that week, is irrelevant.

Fines are fines, to try to socially engineer payments as a way of mitigating and manipulating the middle class guilt of green voters is wrong.

dungfungus said :

howeph said :

…
Good government is about representing ALL Australians, and this change does just that. Good on them no matter who proposed it.

While you final paragraph is true (in a Utopian sense), everyone is supposed to be equal before the law as well so how can you justify what you said?

What does “equal before the law” mean in practice?

Even for the worst crimes like murder, the judge has the flexibility, during sentencing, to take into account the circumstances of the individual being convicted (e.g. a wife who murders her husband, but only after years of ongoing domestic violence and abuse). Is this still being “equal before the law”? I would argue that yes it is.

It is cliché, but life is not the simple black and white that Grimm appears to see; it is filled with shades of grey. The Law needs the flexibility to allow it to deal with these complexities. The alternative, of removing flexibility in the way punishment is imposed, guarantees injustice; not the reverse.

Similarly this new system means that the law is still the same for everyone; but it provides flexibility in the way the punishment (the fines) are imposed – to minimise injustice.

Ben_Dover said :

It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

Utter hogwash. Can you tell me please what “preferential” treatment “rich people” got?

Hi Ben_Dover, I thought that your question was succinctly answered by the second quoted sentence: “A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.”

But then I noticed your later comment to Deckard:

Ben_Dover said :

Deckard said :

The ‘preferential treatment’ idea I think comes from the fact that if a rich person gets a $100 parking fine it comes out of their petty cash/savings. If a poor person gets the $100 parking fine it’s more likely to come out of the family food budget.

That is not “preferential” though, that is circumstantial

pref·er·ence

noun
1. the act of preferring.
2. the state of being preferred.
3. that which is preferred; choice: His preference is vanilla, not chocolate.
4. a practical advantage given to one over others.
5. a prior right or claim, as to payment of dividends or to assets upon dissolution.

What we have here is a blatant use of weasel words, and an attempt at emotive reasoning.

Please refer to definition number 4 – “a practical advantage given to one over others.”

Most people – because they have more money – have a practical advantage over poor people, with respect to paying the same fine for breaking the same law. In this way fines are *preferential* to the wealthy.

Ben_Dover, I try to be unequivocal and concise with the words I use on this forum. You will not read “weasel words” from me. Nor is this “an attempt at emotive reasoning”. It is applied ethics.

I will support this if it applies to everyone.

Not that I have any fines, but I would consider getting parking fines daily if I could set up a direct debit scheme to repay them at $1.00 per week.

astrojax said :

we should also introduce the system one of the scandanavian (of course – but i forget which one; sweden, i think) countries has, which is to link fines applicable to traffic offences with the income of the offender – thus a lower socioeconomic member of the community might get a ticket for say fifty dollars for a given offence while rollersk8r’s beemer owner may get pinged thousands for the same infringement… like sam says, you know it makes sense.

Finland does this. But as my friends have pointed out, when a large multinational company director can be fined only 100 Euro for a major traffic offence – because he has used the taxation system to minimise his personal income to such an extent – then this system ain’t perfect either.

howeph said :

….

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

I have two problems with this. If parking fines meant that I wouldn’t be able to ‘put food on the table’, I would make absolutely sure that I didn’t risk being fined.

Secondly, the definition of ‘poor’ seems pretty elastic these days. A single mum with small kids definitely is poor, but there are legions of people who are content to rort the ‘safety net’ of welfare for the rest of their days. These people deserve nothing.

Spiral said :

Ben_Dover said :

Is it a privilege of the rich that they pay the same price for a tin of beans as “the poor”?

Following the logic of some people when we go to the supermarket they should check with the ATO to determine our income and charge for the groceries on a sliding scale based on our income.

Now that would be music to the ears of the socially disadvantaged.

Ben_Dover said :

Is it a privilege of the rich that they pay the same price for a tin of beans as “the poor”?

Following the logic of some people when we go to the supermarket they should check with the ATO to determine our income and charge for the groceries on a sliding scale based on our income.

Deckard said :

The ‘preferential treatment’ idea I think comes from the fact that if a rich person gets a $100 parking fine it comes out of their petty cash/savings. If a poor person gets the $100 parking fine it’s more likely to come out of the family food budget.

That is not “preferential” though, that is circumstantial

pref·er·ence

noun
1. the act of preferring.
2. the state of being preferred.
3. that which is preferred; choice: His preference is vanilla, not chocolate.
4. a practical advantage given to one over others.
5. a prior right or claim, as to payment of dividends or to assets upon dissolution.

What we have here is a blatant use of weasel words, and an attempt at emotive reasoning.

Ben_Dover said :

It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

Utter hogwash. Can you tell me please what “preferential” treatment “rich people” got?

I’m pretty sure they get to jump the queue at ‘Disneyland’ 🙂

Of course for those who end up in the slammer transferring some funds to someone who could organise a few extra privileges wouldn’t go astray.

Ben_Dover said :

It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

Utter hogwash. Can you tell me please what “preferential” treatment “rich people” got?

The ‘preferential treatment’ idea I think comes from the fact that if a rich person gets a $100 parking fine it comes out of their petty cash/savings. If a poor person gets the $100 parking fine it’s more likely to come out of the family food budget.

Is it a privilege of the rich that they pay the same price for a tin of beans as “the poor”?

howeph said :

Grimm said :

It is class warfare because it is giving preferential treatment to people of a lower socioeconomic class.

a) Factually you are wrong. The new system is the same for everyone. The new system just has more options and flexibility – for everyone, the same.

b) It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

Factually, I am correct. The new system has options for people with lower incomes to pay differently. You’re very delusional if you think this system will be the same for everybody.

Socio-economic status should not have any bearing on something that is supposed to be a punishment and deterrent for breaking the law. Your pay cheque has no bearing on the crime, so should not be considered at all.

howeph said :

I notice that you didn’t answer the difficult questions, so I’ll repeat them again:

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

[Do] you acknowledged that it’s not fair, but still think nothing should be changed?

Do the words empathy and compassion mean nothing to you?

My post had answered your question. I guess I will have to spell it out for you in simple terms.
Just because somebody has a lower income does not mean they should be treated differently when they break the law and are punished for it. If the penalty for a traffic infringement is $100 with 28 days to pay, it shouldn’t change because of your income. Income had no bearing in the committing of the offence, and should also have no bearing at all on the punishment. If you can’t afford the fine, don’t break the law. It’s pretty simple. Traffic infringements are a choice.

howeph said :

Grimm said :

Should they also get half the time and only weekend detention for murder too?

Off course not, please don’t resort to straw man arguments. Jail time is not equivalent to a fine. The value of personal freedom is the same weather you are rich or poor, whilst the value of money is very different.

It’s not a strawman just because you don’t like it. It is illustrating a principal. Everybody should be equal under the law. Any law. They should also be equal when being punished for breaking them.

howeph said :

Good government is about representing ALL Australians, and this change does just that. Good on them no matter who proposed it.

This change does nothing but pander to the lower end of town. The same people that the greens constantly increase handouts to. This policy does not represent anybody but their voter base.

Grimm said :

It is class warfare because it is giving preferential treatment to people of a lower socioeconomic class.

No it’s anti-class warfare, as it give preferential treatment to people with no class.

I think I would reserve “class warfare” (much overused, anyway) for this Government’s wondrously efficient, impeccably equitable, “don’t you worry about that”, “no, that’s really not what we said, and besides, nothing could possibly go wrong with this” (although one or two people might lose their jobs if things do go wrong), system of rates and land taxes.

Isn’t “class warfare” just another way of saying that politicians tend to be more generous to people who do, or are likely to, vote for them – what’s new?

howeph said :

Grimm said :

It is class warfare because it is giving preferential treatment to people of a lower socioeconomic class.

a) Factually you are wrong. The new system is the same for everyone. The new system just has more options and flexibility – for everyone, the same.

b) It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

I notice that you didn’t answer the difficult questions, so I’ll repeat them again:

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

[Do] you acknowledged that it’s not fair, but still think nothing should be changed?

Do the words empathy and compassion mean nothing to you?

Grimm said :

Should they also get half the time and only weekend detention for murder too?

Off course not, please don’t resort to straw man arguments. Jail time is not equivalent to a fine. The value of personal freedom is the same weather you are rich or poor, whilst the value of money is very different.

Grimm said :

And no, I am against it because it allows people to be treated differently for the same offence.

You’r repeating yourself see your first sentence above.

Grimm said :

This is however par for the course for the watermelon party. Appeal to the “little Aussie battler” because handouts and preferential treatment win more votes than common sense and responsible economic policy.

I’m confused, aren’t the Green supporters supposed to be the latte sipping hippies from the inner city, not the “Little Aussie Battler”?

Bringing up unrelated issues such as “responsible economic policy” sounds like a) trying to change the subject; and b) more partisan rhetoric.

Good government is about representing ALL Australians, and this change does just that. Good on them no matter who proposed it.

While you final paragraph is true (in a Utopian sense), everyone is supposed to be equal before the law as well so how can you justify what you said?

It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

Utter hogwash. Can you tell me please what “preferential” treatment “rich people” got?

Rattenbury spelled ‘Bus’ incorrectly

Grimm said :

It is class warfare because it is giving preferential treatment to people of a lower socioeconomic class.

a) Factually you are wrong. The new system is the same for everyone. The new system just has more options and flexibility – for everyone, the same.

b) It was the old system that treated people from differing socio-economic classes differently, with preferential treatment going to the wealthy. A fine to wealthy people is an inconvenience, to poor people it can mean going hungry or cold.

I notice that you didn’t answer the difficult questions, so I’ll repeat them again:

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

[Do] you acknowledged that it’s not fair, but still think nothing should be changed?

Do the words empathy and compassion mean nothing to you?

Grimm said :

Should they also get half the time and only weekend detention for murder too?

Off course not, please don’t resort to straw man arguments. Jail time is not equivalent to a fine. The value of personal freedom is the same weather you are rich or poor, whilst the value of money is very different.

Grimm said :

And no, I am against it because it allows people to be treated differently for the same offence.

You’r repeating yourself see your first sentence above.

Grimm said :

This is however par for the course for the watermelon party. Appeal to the “little Aussie battler” because handouts and preferential treatment win more votes than common sense and responsible economic policy.

I’m confused, aren’t the Green supporters supposed to be the latte sipping hippies from the inner city, not the “Little Aussie Battler”?

Bringing up unrelated issues such as “responsible economic policy” sounds like a) trying to change the subject; and b) more partisan rhetoric.

Good government is about representing ALL Australians, and this change does just that. Good on them no matter who proposed it.

Rollersk8r, thanks for replying.

Rollersk8r said :

I have compassion but where does this start and stop?

I guess it starts and stops with the people who need our compassion. If an unfair system disproportionately effects the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, then don’t they count?

Rollersk8r said :

Give everyone the option to pay fines off slowly and I’m sure they’d take it.

We’ll I, for one, wouldn’t. I’m in the fortunate position, like most people, that paying instalments – or doing community service – would be more inconvenient than just paying it outright. So the change in the law doesn’t effect most of us.

Rollersk8r said :

How many people are we really talking about that have lost their licence like this anyway?

How many would it take?

Rollersk8r said :

And I’m still scratching my head as to why the Greens are saying disadvantaged people need their cars more than the rest of us?? I need my car fairly badly so I try extra hard to avoid fines!

No need to scratch your head because they aren’t saying that at all. They are saying that poor people are more likely to have their license automatically suspended because they find it harder to pay fines.

It’s not about paying less, it’s about making the system fairer. Aren’t we supposed to be the great egalitarian society, and land of the fair go?

I’m sure this new fine system won’t be rorted.

Since the Labor/Greens open border policy illegal immigrants may have to be locked up for unpaid fines and it breaks the Labor/Greens hearts to lock them up.

So they make new laws that fines don’t have to be paid if you are poor. They make it sound like it’s for everyone but there will be strict rules on how they implement the policy. White Australians won’t pass the requirements.

howeph said :

Sending insults like “the watermelon party” or “drive like a retard” seams to be the extent of your analysis. Are you against the changes just because it was proposed by the Greens?

It is class warfare because it is giving preferential treatment to people of a lower socioeconomic class. Should they also get half the time and only weekend detention for murder too?

And no, I am against it because it allows people to be treated differently for the same offence. This is however par for the course for the watermelon party. Appeal to the “little Aussie battler” because handouts and preferential treatment win more votes than common sense and responsible economic policy.

Shane is taking a short break from being the cyclists’ best friend, to look after the motorists (some of them, anyway) – so be nice to him (he’s probably still recovering from the kanga attack), and remember that these concessions might become more relevant to more people as things get tougher in this town. Those who have never ever had, or can’t possibly contemplate ever getting, a fine can go on enjoying the glow of perfection (or at least of not yet having been caught for being imperfect).

I thought the whole point of a fine was to impose a financial disadvantage on the responsible person to discourage them from breaking the same rule in the future. This soft-cock approach from the Mayor now says you shouldn’t be inconvenienced or disadvantaged by your own actions.

Madness, total madness.

howeph said :

Rollersk8r said :

howeph said :

So the corollary is “If you can pay the fine; do what ever the hell you like”?

At the other end of the spectrum, high income, the answer is definitely yes. …

Are you serious – my sarcasm meter sometimes goes on the blink when reading Internet forum comments?

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

You acknowledged that it’s not fair, but still think nothing should be changed?

Are you crazy? Do the words empathy and compassion mean nothing to you?

I have compassion but where does this start and stop? Give everyone the option to pay fines off slowly and I’m sure they’d take it. How many people are we really talking about that have lost their licence like this anyway?

And I’m still scratching my head as to why the Greens are saying disadvantaged people need their cars more than the rest of us?? I need my car fairly badly so I try extra hard to avoid fines!

A better system would be to give a discount if you pay the fine early. At least the gov get something. If you don’t want a fine do the right thing and no fines will be given.

ChrisinTurner said :

The fines are now so low and enforcement so lax, it is cheaper for people to pay the fines than park legally.

I decided to test that theory once. It turned out to be a myth.

I don’t know why so many seem to have such a big problem with this. They still pay the fine. Just a bit slower. Big deal.

dont break the law if you cannot afford to pay the consequences.

Most people on the road generally make the effort to drive safely and obey the law.

This is simply a slap in the face to them, and “a cup of tea and bickies” given to those who do not.

“and improve social justice outcomes in Canberra”

Doesn’t that just say it all? Wishy-washy, feel-good, luvvy-duvvy, trite, meanigless pablum for the middle class guilt riddled lefty.

Grimm said :

Ah, more class warfare from the watermelon party. What a surprise.

So if you are poor, you can drive like a retard and park wherever you like and just pay the fines whenever you get around to it. Earn a living and contribute to society, you must pay on time or lose your license.

How on earth is this class warfare?

“Earn a living and contribute to society” – you can earn a living and still be poor. A single income family caring for a child with a severe disability will do it for you.

I’ll ask you the same questions that I asked Rollersk8tr:

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

[Do] you acknowledged that it’s not fair, but still think nothing should be changed?

Are you crazy? Do the words empathy and compassion mean nothing to you?

Sending insults like “the watermelon party” or “drive like a retard” seams to be the extent of your analysis. Are you against the changes just because it was proposed by the Greens?

Genie said :

Soooo people can pay their fines back at say $5 a month, which isn’t really much of a punishment… kinda just a slap on the wrist really….

Sounds familiar !

Sounds like the poor folk will get to live like the rich folk when it comes to parking fines then.

Hooray for our egalitarian society!

astrojax said :

we should also introduce the system one of the scandanavian (of course – but i forget which one; sweden, i think) countries has, which is to link fines applicable to traffic offences with the income of the offender – thus a lower socioeconomic member of the community might get a ticket for say fifty dollars for a given offence while rollersk8r’s beemer owner may get pinged thousands for the same infringement… like sam says, you know it makes sense.

Da Comrade.

The fines are now so low and enforcement so lax, it is cheaper for people to pay the fines than park legally.

Soooo people can pay their fines back at say $5 a month, which isn’t really much of a punishment… kinda just a slap on the wrist really….

Sounds familiar !

Are there other Ministers too? Or does Shane now do it all.

astrojax said :

we should also introduce the system one of the scandanavian (of course – but i forget which one; sweden, i think) countries has, which is to link fines applicable to traffic offences with the income of the offender – thus a lower socioeconomic member of the community might get a ticket for say fifty dollars for a given offence while rollersk8r’s beemer owner may get pinged thousands for the same infringement… like sam says, you know it makes sense.

That sounds like exactly what the Labor/Green politburo have decreed.

we should also introduce the system one of the scandanavian (of course – but i forget which one; sweden, i think) countries has, which is to link fines applicable to traffic offences with the income of the offender – thus a lower socioeconomic member of the community might get a ticket for say fifty dollars for a given offence while rollersk8r’s beemer owner may get pinged thousands for the same infringement… like sam says, you know it makes sense.

Ah, more class warfare from the watermelon party. What a surprise.

So if you are poor, you can drive like a retard and park wherever you like and just pay the fines whenever you get around to it. Earn a living and contribute to society, you must pay on time or lose your license.

Capitalise the speed cameras.
Socialise the fines they create.
The ratepayers giveth, the law breakers taketh.
This policy should have been part of Labor’s 2012 election policy then again it may have cost them government.
Next thing a custodial sentence will be optional.

Rollersk8r said :

howeph said :

So the corollary is “If you can pay the fine; do what ever the hell you like”?

At the other end of the spectrum, high income, the answer is definitely yes. …

Are you serious – my sarcasm meter sometimes goes on the blink when reading Internet forum comments?

Do you honestly think that it is OK that a $100 dollar fine, that would be an inconvenience to a rich person; but mean a poor family, living hand to mouth, should have to struggle to put food on the table or loose their license?

You acknowledged that it’s not fair, but still think nothing should be changed?

Are you crazy? Do the words empathy and compassion mean nothing to you?

Rollersk8r said :

howeph said :

Reprobate said :

Rollersk8r said :

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.

+1. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.

So the corollary is “If you can pay the fine; do what ever the hell you like”?

At the other end of the spectrum, high income, the answer is definitely yes. Yes black BMW X6 parked illegally on Bunda Street every single day – I’m talking about you.

or the Aston Martin that is a frequent Flyer in the Monday Parking Blues…

IP

I love how the government has coughed up funding to make it easier for people to pay traffic fines, presumably including parking fines, but hasn’t been able to find money yet to install infrastructure that would make it easier for people to avoid parking fines in the first place (namely parking machines that accept something more than coins).

howeph said :

Reprobate said :

Rollersk8r said :

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.

+1. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.

So the corollary is “If you can pay the fine; do what ever the hell you like”?

At the other end of the spectrum, high income, the answer is definitely yes. Yes black BMW X6 parked illegally on Bunda Street every single day – I’m talking about you.

howeph said :

So the corollary is “If you can pay the fine; do what ever the hell you like”?

Well that is basically how fines work…

astrojax said :

Rollersk8r said :

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.

yes, but what of those situations where you have every intention to return to the vehicle before time expired but were unavoidably waylaid, right at a time of other financial stress..? this seems a just and proper response to the realities of the lives of our fellow citizens.

the vagaries of life are uncertain; maybe one day, it will be you?

Well if I was financially stressed I’d be extra careful to avoid any kind of fine. Actually, no I wouldn’t, I’d be just as aware of parking within the rules as I always am. Think I have had one parking fine ever.
Drawing a slightly long bow perhaps – but it almost says people with limited income are forced to break the law more often, no?

Ok, on hand I can see it probably doesn’t make sense to lose your licence over parking fines, but then again parking is a responsibility that goes along with owning a car…

The ACT Government continues to ‘drive’ home the message that a driver’s licence is a right, not a privilege.

Reprobate said :

Rollersk8r said :

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.

+1. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime.

So the corollary is “If you can pay the fine; do what ever the hell you like”?

Rollersk8r said :

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.

+1. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t do the crime. Be responsible for your own actions and think about the effect of your decisions on others.

Soon the greens will be letting ” Canberrans who are struggling” pay fines with leaves or good thoughts about unicorns and rainbows.

Seriously, can we vote these nicompoops out. Oh, hang about, we did…

I scored 23 “buzzword bingo” points from that release BTW.

Rollersk8r said :

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.

yes, but what of those situations where you have every intention to return to the vehicle before time expired but were unavoidably waylaid, right at a time of other financial stress..? this seems a just and proper response to the realities of the lives of our fellow citizens.

the vagaries of life are uncertain; maybe one day, it will be you?

I can’t help it – this absolutely sends the wrong message. It’s not that hard – if you can’t pay the fines then drive properly in the first place.