This was posted 1 year 2 months 15 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired
  • targeted

[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads

1474
[VIC] $5000 Subsidy for Younger Drivers in Regional Victoria to Replace Their Older Cars with Newer Ones @ VicRoads
Go to Deal
JAY13 on 16/10/2023 - 19:31 vicroads.vic.gov.au (1552 clicks)
Last edited 17/10/2023 - 06:38 by 1 other user

Eligibility criteria

  • be between 18 and 25 years old
  • reside in regional Victoria
  • hold a Victorian driver licence
  • be the registered owner of a vehicle that is 16 years old or older and with a low safety rating

unsafe2safe
We're trialling ways to get old, unsafe cars off our roads and help young drivers into newer, safer vehicles.

About unsafe2safe
The safety of your car makes a difference in the event of a crash and may even help avoid one altogether. But many young drivers cannot afford to buy a newer, safer car right now. Sadly, those young drivers are over-represented in serious road crashes.

That's why we're rolling out a targeted trial to give an incentive to young drivers in regional Victoria to scrap their old, unsafe vehicles and replace them with newer, safer cars.

The trial started in 2021 with participants from Bendigo, Ballarat and surrounds. In 2022, we expanded it to other areas of regional Victoria.

How it works

  1. After applying, please complete the free Vehicle Safety Online Course on the VicRoads website.
  2. We’ll select drivers to participate in the unsafe2safe program. We’re prioritising applicants who complete the Vehicle Safety Basics Online Course and feedback form. The course informs drivers about vehicle safety and how to choose a safe car.
  3. Selected participants will receive an invitation letter from VicRoads via e-mail containing the instructions to purchase a newer, safer vehicle under the program and to scrap their old, unsafe car.
  4. Take your older, unsafe car and invitation letter to a participating dealer.
  5. Choose a newer, safer car from the dealership.
  6. Pay the difference between the price the dealer is asking for and the $5,000 subsidy.
  7. The dealer arranges to have the old vehicle taken away to be scrapped.
  8. The unsafe vehicle is scrapped at an auto parts recycler. Scrapping removes the car from the fleet, so the crash risk is not transferred to another person.
  9. The dealer claims the $5,000 back from Vicroads.

Also, there is cash back offer is going on at the moment from MG Motors. It can be stacked with subsidy. The deal link is here. https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/803971

Automotive Car Subsidy

Related Stores

VicRoads
VicRoads

closed Comments

  • cheekymonkey97 on 16/10/2023 - 19:36
    +157

    Congrats, car prices just went up $5k for everyone. Pay day for the stealerships

    • Wildesy on 16/10/2023 - 19:52
      +59

      Sure they did. Dealers are all putting every car up by 5k on the back of the minuscule amount of people that fit this criteria.

      • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:01

        Economic rent is a well known reality. The sellers try to capture as much of the subsidy as they can.

        • bio on 17/10/2023 - 11:57
          +5

          The sellers try to capture as much of the subsidy as they can.

          Only if it applies to a sizable percentage of the population. If 95% of their customer base don't have access to the subsidy no sane seller will attempt this (and the ones who does will quickly be outcompeted).

    • Franc-T on 16/10/2023 - 20:13
      +20

      100% like the first home buyers grant

    • DMetal on 16/10/2023 - 20:15
      -2

      Socialist lefties are at it again… Love spending others people's money, all the while adding to inflation and rates raise pressure

      • dottjt on 16/10/2023 - 21:11
        +12

        What's your proposal then?

        Edit: Oh wait, this is for 16 year old cars, I feel like no one in this thread actually read the post lol. Also the title is misleading, it should include that fact, otherwise it implies something completely different to what is being presented

        • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:02
          -7

          The last thing you do is subsidise a high variability priced product. This brain fart just lines used car dealers’ pockets. Where they used to pay $3000 minimum trade in they now do $5000 and trouser the lot.

          If you must do something along these lines, how about subsidise standard price servicing (so the mechanics can’t extract economic rent) and not worry about the age of the car.

          But really, how about pay some of the rapidly expanding government debt so that the rest of us doesn’t have to step in and bail Victoria out.

          • dottjt on 17/10/2023 - 01:50
            +3

            @entropysbane: I don't understand your proposal. The point of this initiative is to "remove old, unsafe cars off our roads and help young drivers into newer, safer vehicles." How would subsidising standard price servicing achieve that exactly?

            But oh wait, it's because you believe that old cars are not unsafe compared to current cars. That's literal bullshit. You can't tell me that a car from 16+ years ago is safer than an equivalent car today, inspite of the mountains of evidence claiming otherwise.

            • entropysbane on 17/10/2023 - 07:30
              -6

              @dottjt: I strongly doubt a $10000 car is markedly safer than a $5000 car.

              regular servicing means an older car is as safe as possible, but users of old cars tend to just change the oil, not do a full service which replaces aging parts. But the other important reason is that service costs are fixed, more easily auditable as you can compare like with like in the workshop. You can’t do in the sales yard where every deal is different.

          • buckster on 17/10/2023 - 07:38

            @entropysbane: But this won't affect the rest of us. The way I see it is deleted will just haggle less with under 25s reading in bombs as they will know the kids can get the extra cash, and it'll be business as usual for anyone over 25?

          • Blunglefortness on 17/10/2023 - 11:46

            @entropysbane: There is no trade in. The car gets scrapped. Read the actual steps.

      • Ademos on 16/10/2023 - 22:12
        +12

        You do know the right in this country, every single time they get in, leave the economy in greater debt and bigger shambles. The difference is their money isn't going into kids or even local businesses pockets, it's going into murdoch, ex mining mates on brand new "environment" boards, and taxing LNG at 1/20th the rate Qatar does while giving all the mining companies massive rebates because otherwise they'd LeAve ThE CouNtRy.

        Right? I mean, right?

        • wackedupwacko on 16/10/2023 - 23:45
          -7

          Part of the problem is that everything is lumped into "left" and "right".

          Conservative economic policy is generally better and more sound. But the LNP economics have been a bit of a dousy. There is a big difference there.

          If you consider economics as a whole I would say the majority of people are CONSERVATIVE with their money and its not a bad thing.

          • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:27
            +8

            @wackedupwacko: It might be, shame the liberals havent demonstrated it for 100 years. Shame they took the free degrees and put in negative gearinf while fighting medicare since its inception, killing it the first time for 20 9dd years, when it was for veterans.

          • sovereign01 on 17/10/2023 - 11:36
            -1

            @wackedupwacko: "Conservative economic policy is generally better and more sound" hahahahhahahah

          • paullovesbargains on 17/10/2023 - 12:45
            +4

            @wackedupwacko: Not sure what you mean by conservative, but yeah the left vs right thing messes with my head. The right is apparently free markets and economic liberalism, but then if you look at reform of the economy such as floating the currency and setting up the RBA act (for better of worse these were revolutionary market focused reforms). That was the "left", who apparently are socialism greenies who just want to spend and destroy the economy.

            And then of course the biggest budget deficits this country has seen were at the hands of the liberals.

            The whole thing does my head in.

            • Ryanmyo on 19/10/2023 - 20:04
              +1

              @paullovesbargains: Tis amazing the obvious amount of leftie tightarses on this site (judging by the up and down votes) always chasing a way to save their own money, but clearly happy to support unnecessary policies like this and piss away everyone else's cesh 😂

      • RefusdClassification on 17/10/2023 - 07:02
        +2

        I thought the "Green Left" hated cars and wanted everyone to use public transport (or ride pushbikes or electric bicycles or use electric scooters). Maybe they'll start handing out Teslas as bribes to people to continue voting for the ALP.

      • mike6969 on 17/10/2023 - 08:03
        +1

        I'm a socialist lefty but I think cash handouts for assets are a bad idea

    • AustriaBargain on 16/10/2023 - 20:24
      +11

      Thanks whoever it was who replaced Dan. How annoying it is that the entire might of News Corp isn't around to constantly remind us of who the Premier of Victoria is anymore. I couldn't name a single other Premier, can barely remember my own state's Premier. I want to say Peter Malanookiss, but I'm not sure if he's the opposition Premier. But the entire country knew who was the Premier of Victoria the last 12 years because News Corp wouldn't let us forget.

      • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:05

        The average journalist regardless of stable probably has trouble spelling Malinauskas.

        Many people do it seems.

      • magic8ballgag on 17/10/2023 - 08:58

        Most didn't know who his name before the pandemic.

    • tunzafun001 on 16/10/2023 - 23:26
      +1

      So my 21 yr old Commo is worth how much now to a kid (as trade bait)?
      To be honest, probably be safer in a VX Wagon vs a newer buzz box.

    • Rob-4x4 on 17/10/2023 - 07:44

      Just like how the first home buyers subsidy caused house prices to increase ..

    • Lets Make Sandwiches on 17/10/2023 - 08:12

      The used car market is in a shambles - nobody has any money. Also interstate options are there if somehow victoria sellers jack prices. If i was a wholesaler though i would be selling cars to VIC stealers now.

  • King Steuart on 16/10/2023 - 19:38
    +18

    Wts my car, was looking at value $6k but now asking $11k

    • Lucidium on 17/10/2023 - 13:15
      +1

      Then you forget your car is 16+ years old anyway…

    • Pedro321 on 16/10/2023 - 19:58
      +40

      Yeah, lots of millionaires driving 16 year old cars…

      Back to your cave with a tin foil hat you go…

      • OzBrogains on 16/10/2023 - 20:13
        +6

        What did the cave do?

      • machej on 16/10/2023 - 20:42

        Lots of multi millionaire Camry drivers you'll find.

        • entropysbane on 16/10/2023 - 22:06

          Many millionaires might expect their kid to pay for their own car. That’s how they teach them to become millionaires.

        • TheMandalorian on 16/10/2023 - 22:46

          I don’t know about Millionaires but this Mandalorian drives a Camry.
          This is the way!

      • mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 20:43
        +7

        Plenty of millionaires driving 16 year old cars. One way to save money is simply to not spend it. Rather than borrowing money to buy a car at 13%, pay cash for a Japanese car and drive it for 10+ years.

        Rich people also tend to buy cars with the intention of passing them onto their children when they start driving. It is nice to know the full history of a second hand car.

        • 2ndeffort on 16/10/2023 - 20:59
          +1

          Some do, but many are OK for their business to lease a car that they then drive around. Up until Jun 30 you could write off the entire purchase cost in a single financial year. This means you could offset company profits against the purchase of a new car within a single tax year. Would you rather pay tax or drive a new car?

        • freefall101 on 17/10/2023 - 08:51

          I doubt many drive cars with low safety ratings. Saving money is one thing, but I don’t know many wealthy people willing to risk their kids.

      • 2ndeffort on 16/10/2023 - 20:56
        +1

        I have a mate that's a multimillionaire, he owns a dozen sportscars all more than 16 years old. Spending outrageous money fixing his fleet of old cars is pretty much his obsession.

        • Krankite on 17/10/2023 - 10:40
          +2

          Ok but how many of those cars would he be willing to sell for $5k?

        • slipperypete on 07/11/2023 - 14:40

          below 25?

      • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:21
        +3

        Yeah, lots of millionaires driving 16 year old cars…

        I know a few….

      • Jackson on 16/10/2023 - 22:20

        I drive an 01 Camry, most reliable car ever driven. Not too thirsty either as it's the 4 cyl. Yes I eat 2min noodles and drink water exclusively

        • shoppe on 17/10/2023 - 00:40
          +1

          It's okay, @Jackson, not everyone can be rich.

      • muwu on 16/10/2023 - 22:23

        I'm multi- and my Falcon is going on 24 years now.

        Cashflow builds your wealth, and what choices you make for house and car determines that more than any other financial decisions in life.

    • Joker042 on 16/10/2023 - 20:15
      +7

      Shit man, you think every single thing that gets done needs to be voted on by you? That's big brain right there.

      Let me know when they vote on what shade of yellow the short bus should be. That'll be a fun one.

      • jv on 16/10/2023 - 21:22
        -5

        you think every single thing that gets done needs to be voted on by you?

        Can I have the English version of that?

        • gakko on 16/10/2023 - 21:28

          Good one…

  • CheapBrah on 16/10/2023 - 19:50
    +9

    Only in Victoria

  • TheDukeOfNukem on 16/10/2023 - 19:51
    +2

    Damn.

    I love in regional but am 27 and my car is only 15 years old.

    Maybe in the next life :'(

    • sprof on 16/10/2023 - 19:54
      +1

      I don't "love" nor live regional but not for everyone

      • TheDukeOfNukem on 16/10/2023 - 19:56
        +2

        Lmao. Shitty ass phone "correcting" things that didn't need it

    • Pedro321 on 16/10/2023 - 19:56
      +8

      Maybe read the WHOLE post…

      1. Take your older, unsafe car and invitation letter to a participating dealer
      • Jagd on 16/10/2023 - 19:58

        damn, cutting in a 2ndhand car dealer ruins the deal.

        • frugalferret on 16/10/2023 - 21:15
          +2

          Also the car gets destroyed and the Vin recorded before the $5k can be claimed by the dealer.

    • Dvbargain on 16/10/2023 - 20:03
      +15

      If you're not smart, waffle on about something you don't understand in Ozb comments

      • Jagd on 16/10/2023 - 20:26
        -2

        Damn, I fit in perfectly if your anything to go by.

    • mathew42 on 16/10/2023 - 20:46

      Maybe read the WHOLE post…

      1. The unsafe vehicle is scrapped at an auto parts recycler. Scrapping removes the car from the fleet, so the crash risk is not transferred to another person.
      • schquid on 16/10/2023 - 21:02

        Rope in the car yard, get a few others involved and organise a nice little scam organisation. Call it DanAnd Corp. /s

        It's amazing the lengths people will go to just to avoid honest work, that would be more profitable for the same level of effort.

        • frugalferret on 16/10/2023 - 21:17

          Having to supply the Vin number of the vehicle before claiming the rebate stops multiple claims.

    • NoApostrophePlurals on 16/10/2023 - 21:54
      +2

      You're* showing us you're not very smart.
      Did you miss the part where it says dealer? Did you also miss the part where you need to buy 3 newer, safer cars? Haha

        • NoApostrophePlurals on 16/10/2023 - 22:05
          +6

          *Frankly my dear, your opinion doesn't change that you're not very smart.

  • chyawala on 16/10/2023 - 20:13
    +2

    The cheaper the car being traded in the better. Trade in a $500 car for $5000+ towards another.

    • kampua on 16/10/2023 - 21:47
      -2

      That $5000 safer car just went up in price to $10k.

  • justtoreply on 16/10/2023 - 20:14
    +8

    This is so important. What a great initiative

    Truly tho dot point 4 comes after dot point 6. Don't let your dealer know until the price is agreed on.

    • justtoreply on 16/10/2023 - 20:17
      +4

      Wow 2 negs within 30 seconds. Clearly people that don't think much of keeping kids safe (18-25 is still a kid in terms of driving experience and auto ownership) when they can't afford a safe car themselves because the world is screwing them financially.

      As a parent I've always intended to buy a safe car for my kids straight off the bat. Don't want to lose them due to being cheap. I love them so

      • shoppe on 17/10/2023 - 00:47
        +2

        You could make $5000 if you first bought them a piece of junk, and then took up the offer and got them a safe car, afterwards.

    • Ref on 16/10/2023 - 20:40
      +2

      Dont know why you are getting the negs, show the 5k subsidy after they agree on the price so they dont hike it up a bit.

  • RolandWaites on 16/10/2023 - 20:18
    +9

    Good if you're looking to buy your first car at that age. Go collect the cheapest car you can off Gumtree, trade it for $5k and get a discounted new(er) car.

    • Ok computer on 16/10/2023 - 20:42
      +1

      This is the correct answer

    • frugalferret on 16/10/2023 - 21:25
      +10

      That is exactly what the intention of the rebate is. Get older cheap vehicles off the road and assist young drivers to purchase safer vehicles.

      Subsidising 1000x $5k cars is just $5 million, and probably less expensive for the government than 1 car full of teens all suffering near death injuries and requiring life long care because they were driving a $1000 1990 Barina instead of a $6000 2010 Falcon with a much better safety standards.

      • cookie2 on 17/10/2023 - 08:04

        The safety standards of a vehicle aren't what kill young drivers. If it's about safety, just police better and advertise to shift people's views. This is just an expensive bandaid if that's the case.

        • Alzori on 17/10/2023 - 14:23
          +3

          This isn't about addressing every crash, it's about addressing those that are caused by poor safety standard vehicles.

          If modern safety features in cars don't improve safety for statistically some of our highest risk drivers, on some of our worst quality roads, where do these features ever make a difference?

  • Jerrysberrys on 16/10/2023 - 20:20
    +1

    broooooo i need this in nsw

  • Jikx on 16/10/2023 - 20:22
    +13

    wtf Victoria doesn't have enough money to piss away like this..

    • Mokr on 16/10/2023 - 20:50
      +25

      If a young person gets in a crash it's worse for the state

      • Smol Cat on 17/10/2023 - 01:00
        +7

        Seriously people have zero idea about risk mitigation and the true cost of things.

        • Mokr on 17/10/2023 - 07:56
          +1

          But the question is will it work. Because big policy often have different outcomes .

          Like would it be safer spending the money elsewhwre like alcohol programs

        • ONEMariachi on 17/10/2023 - 09:27
          -2

          They also think a state/federal expenditure should be run like their home finances.

          • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 10:10
            -1

            @ONEMariachi: Yes, a state should be run like your home finances. You realise that the state of Victoria does not issue its own currency, right?

            • ONEMariachi on 17/10/2023 - 10:52
              -1

              @CommuterPolluter: You genuinely think you said something profound, don't you?

              • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 11:20
                -1

                @ONEMariachi: No, not particularly profound.

                There are arguments to be made that a currency issuer should not be bound by the laws of ‘cash in = cash out’ (whether you agree with the thesis or not the argument can be made). These arguments do not apply to state Governments, which are not currency issuers. State Governments do indeed need to balance their budgets, just like a household.

                • ONEMariachi on 17/10/2023 - 11:44
                  -2

                  @CommuterPolluter: Just say you don't understand it. It's not hard, it doesn't mean you're stupid.

                  Issuing currency, is one mild reason for a federal government- however not the entirety, nor even a large reason.
                  A states budget is significantly more complex than a household, and comparing it to one, is fundamentally flawed reasoning. Just stop, you are considerably out of your depth.

                  • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 12:16
                    -1

                    @ONEMariachi: I wish you wouldn’t be so confrontational or snarky.

                    The Government of Victoria is not the Federal Government of the United States of America. It can and will run out money. At such a point, all public spending will be slashed, not just ‘cash for mates’ programs like this.

                    • ONEMariachi on 17/10/2023 - 12:34
                      -1

                      @CommuterPolluter: I wish you would stop regurgitating Murdoch media talking points and think for yourself at some point, but here we are.

                      • hazzad on 20/10/2023 - 16:23
                        -1

                        @ONEMariachi: In all honesty what makes you the authority on all things state budget related. People "can" have opinions. i doubt your point of view and stance on the topic is the sole right one. Whilst any budget, be it state ot federal is considerably more complicated than a household budget, governements at all levels have little concern for how that money is spent. Given Victoria's current defecit, its quite clear they have little concern for the defecit that will leave behind. I talk to many at ground level that have done trade works within state run buildings and the waste that comes out of their refurbs is mind boggling. Little concern for reuse or recylcing anything. Just rip out and throw away. If its happenening at that level its happening at many other levels. In the end state and federal employees are playing with money that is'nt overly accountable.

                        • ONEMariachi on 20/10/2023 - 18:22

                          @hazzad: An interesting rant, absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about though.

                          also it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of the best minds behind economic policy. I genuinely couldn't care less about the average plebs opinion. It's pointless and has no value.

  • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 20:27
    +4

    What a joke. More money thrown away. Looks like taxes are going up again.

    • ninnypoop on 16/10/2023 - 20:46
      -1

      When did they last go up?

      • CheapBrah on 16/10/2023 - 20:50
        +10

        There have been 50 new or increased taxes under the current Victorian government.

        • KlyJuly on 17/10/2023 - 09:33

          Source?

      • 2ndeffort on 16/10/2023 - 21:05
        +3

        Payroll tax in Vic just went up significantly. Of course businesses just passed it on by jacking up their prices accordingly but now everyone blames those companies and not Dan Andrews.

        • Mozzmanau on 16/10/2023 - 23:05
          -2

          Yep, because the Dantards don't have a brain among them.

        • Ademos on 17/10/2023 - 06:32
          +5

          The maximum amount went up 10 percent after not changing with inflation for 4 years. So on balance, its trended downwards. So thats an outright lie.

          Its also barely changed since 1998.

          Perhaps i should rephrash. You dont finance gud.

          • CommuterPolluter on 17/10/2023 - 13:35

            @Ademos: You don’t think landlords will pass land tax increases on to tenants?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join