News Breaking…
Labor to make 50 cents fares permanent! News Flash…
50 Cents Public Transport Fare to Be Permanent if Labor Gets in QLD
ilove on 15/09/2024 - 09:58
Last edited 16/09/2024 - 09:52 by 2 other users
Last edited 16/09/2024 - 09:52 by 2 other users
Related Stores
Comments
thats alright 50c fares are being subsidized by everyone north of the sunshine coast
50c fares also apply to regional buses in places such as Townsville and Cairns… My understanding is the patronage per service is less outside the South East so the subsidy per service is higher in the regions too.
More busses on the road costs more money, but it also means fewer cars. This is a vote winner if it's explained properly.
I used it a lot when I lived in Brisbane, usually daily. Granted with 1 car between a couple. But it was great with the dedicated busways and frequent services. I also use it a lot when I’m visiting now.
I’m GC based now and have only got into using it more often since 50c fares. Previously I only used it for the airport or a night out in Broadbeach every now and then. Now using it to get to GCUH, shops and did it for the air show and swell festival. My kid is loving it and I’m liking the extra steps and not having to look for a park.
Direct revenue from public transport isn’t what funds upgrades primarily. I would have gone a bit higher like $1-2 so that with increased use the overall loss do revenue wouldn’t be as much. However I don’t think the end game is increased revenue, it’s reducing traffic, easing parking demand, changing habits and stimulating local business.
Yep Expect less frequent services to make it work
NEWS FLASH … that was based on a "trial" run for 1 month only.
Personally, I don't live in QLD … but one should never/EVER 100% believe what pollies say prior to being elected. Things change very quickly once in power +++ realise how much $$$ their "promises" actually cost long term.
The government was already subsidising PT by 80%+ already. This just makes it 95%+ (you get less revenue per trip, but more trips so it balances out slightly), it's not a massive difference in the end.
Labor are already in power, this is a desperate effort to stay in power. They already know what it'll cost them, at least $300m a year, but they can ride out the coal royalties paying for it (at least until the next election).
They would actually keep it because they've made it an absolute key promise, and removing it would completely sink them in 2028. But they're not going to win, so it doesn't really matter.
I think people want to know what the proposed policy is before they vote. Anyway both LNP and Labor are promising to keep it now (that’s if you trust Crisafulli, which I don’t)
Not voting LNP for other reasons, but very happy about 50c fares. It’s a bloody great idea, in my view the means justify the ends. Great for QLD and great for other states to watch the impact of longer term might be good for Australia if it works and others follow.
lol anything promised before an election by any party should never ever be used as a reason to vote for them
if you do, you're naïve and shouldn't be allowed to vote
unlike superannuation………past performance IS a reliable indicated of future performance when it comes to governments
Doubtful.
If that was true the Libs would never have one or would win again post the Onion Muncher.there are heaps of boomers who still vote liberal
True. Mainly the small % who ARE the greedy factor that every other generation since labels as the problem. [That part they have right.]
Imagine a working life with all the benefits of the union structured wages / conditions, and then they contract fiscal amnesiawhen they begin to rake it in from other ppls toil & sweat. The rich & greedy is the problem here, not a birth certificate.
( Hint, David Koch, hypocritical AH always bagging boomers. When was he born again? What's he worth? How deep are his pockets?)
Not basing my vote on this, but it’s a great change which will hopefully be sustained.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make it free after the costs of all the ticket machines and people to run it.
Might be good to have it free, but the ticketing system also helps collect data about usage which drives decisions about investment in future route additions/improvements.
Why is this being downvoted? Data about usage is critical for appropriate allocation of resources
There is also a slight psychology aspect to it. People tend to respect things a bit more when they have to pay for it. Something about having an investment in it albeit miniscule.
Unfortunately that does not discourage those who have no respect to begin with.
5.95 rand
doing alittle more reading into this topic (as said not from QLD - so it's new to me) …
it also appears that QLD unions are pushing their stance on this.
YET - they aren't willing to say where money will come from to fund such an issue.Perhaps we should be taxing UNIONS to fund such an idea.
Where does any government funding come from? Taxes… It'd be same with any other government initiative, you don't usually get people asking where the money to fund a new hospital comes from.
Or maybe use King Clive & Queen Gina's throwaway smoko money to run Australia? (seeing as it's backed by Chinese wealth) Ginas PR machine already has hands up the backs of all political parties, on both sides.
How dare the workers want safe working conditions and affordable viable transport options.
Yeah right. Shows you how desperate they are.
Don't forget his cheaper petrol for QLD.
We are talking about a politician.
LNP must also be desperate. They've agreed to match this if they are elected.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-15/qld-50-cent-public-tr…
Nothing can be permanent or grandfathered.
Not even perms or grandfathers?
Who exactly is "they"? Government of the day has literally no say on decisions of parole boards, and limited influence on sentencing. The idea is that the judicial process should not be political.
Yes, there are certain levers governments can pull, e.g. mandatory minimum sentences, but the time it takes for these to pass, come into effect, and for them to complete one cycle of sentencing, serving the new minimum, then parole means that any decisions of a current government will not see any noticeable impacts for probably at least a decade from now.
This is not to deny the facts - obviously there has been a dramatic increase in crime in QLD, mostly in North and Far North QLD, but this has nothing to do with "them" letting out criminals. It's a social problem that successive governments have not been able to solve about what to do with old rural towns in decline, and rapidly increasing numbers of youths and young adults without jobs or futures.
"They" is the government. "They" are the ones with the power to introduce or change laws. "They" are the ones who can stop the court system continually letting repeat offenders out on bail. "They" have had a long time to figure this out now, and have done nothing.
This is not just a rural problem.
"They" is the government. "They" are the ones with the power to introduce or change laws. "They" are the ones who can stop the court system continually letting repeat offenders out on bail.
What laws are you proposing the government introduce? I mean it's easy to whinge about the issue, but what are the solutions?
Bail is a decision for the courts, everyone has the right to bail, and it is already the case that we have a presumption against bail. This means that the arrested (note, that they have not been found guilty of any crime at this point) will need to prove to the court that they will not pose a danger to the community. The decision is then made by the magistrate or judge.
What are you proposing that the government do? Ban bail?
What are you proposing that the government do? Ban bail?
I never suggested that at all. If people have been granted bail many times, and every single time they have then reoffended, it's time to stop granting bail.
They get bail, they commit a crime, then no bail. Everyone gets a second chance, just not a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th chance.
When people know they can get away with things, they keep doing it. There is no deterrent.
Some ppl are gullible enough to think you just keep locking ppl up and changing laws to lock even more up. Next is the old we need more cops crap. It's a cyclic failure of both sides of govt to deny (look away from) the causal factors.
The bigger the gap between rich and poor, and the more that capitalism chasm bumps up against the reality of overcrowded & mixed income suburbia, the worse it will get.Coin Karma
Have a read of the ABC "woe is me" article on the 17 year old that killed himself in prison. Was given a million chances, numerous groups and individuals tried to help him, he continued to be a piece of shit. But sure, we should just give someone who tried to beat a woman, while her 3 year watched, a hug and send him on his way.
When shit people have kids, they often turn out to be shit themselves. Unfortunately, in their incredible wisdom, the government of yore thought it was a good idea to incentivise idiots and drug addicts to procreate by offering a "baby bonus".
Have a read of the ABC "woe is me" article on the 17 year old that killed himself in prison. Was given a million chances, numerous groups and individuals tried to help him, he continued to be a piece of shit. But sure, we should just give someone who tried to beat a woman, while her 3 year watched, a hug and send him on his way.
What do you mean by "give him a hug and send him on his way"? He was literally in prison.
When shit people have kids, they often turn out to be shit themselves.
Sure, perhaps you can head up the "Board of Shit People" to sterilise those you believe to be "shit".
I'm not being facetious, I think this is a dangerous rabbit hole to go down.
Unfortunately, in their incredible wisdom, the government of yore thought it was a good idea to incentivise idiots and drug addicts to procreate by offering a "baby bonus".
Sure, the federal Howard government of the 90s. What exactly does this have to do with the current QLD state government?
What do you mean by "give him a hug and send him on his way"? He was literally in prison.
Correct, that was in response to the above poster suggesting people like that shouldn't be in prison. All he ever did when out of prison was commit crime and terrorise the community.
I'm not being facetious, I think this is a dangerous rabbit hole to go down
I came up with a solution for this a long time ago, reverse baby bonus. Pay people $10k to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation. The only people who will take this up are those that don't want kids, and derros/crackheads. The $10k is nothing compared to the social problems caused, and the trauma caused to the kids of these ferals. The money that would have been spent on these people and their kids can be put back into the education system and the childcare system, to help people who actually want and look after their kids.
No forcing necessary.
Correct, that was in response to the above poster suggesting people like that shouldn't be in prison. All he ever did when out of prison was commit crime and terrorise the community.
You're confounding two issues here, which are (i) what to do with people who are criminals, and (ii) what to do to reduce the number of people turning to crime.
I've never met anybody who thinks we should just be letting criminals free, a la "give him a hug and send him on his way" - this is obviously a caricature. The problem, which we've not addressed well is how to keep people from turning to crime in the first place. The issue with the "tough on crime" mob is that they have no credible plans as to how we stop people turning to crime.
This is what the above poster was referring to - if you change nothing, then you will just continue to lock up more and more people. You end up spending more and more taxpayer money to build bigger and bigger prisons, which turns inmates into harder and harder criminals.
I came up with a solution for this a long time ago, reverse baby bonus. Pay people $10k to get a vasectomy or tubal ligation. The only people who will take this up are those that don't want kids, and derros/crackheads. The $10k is nothing compared to the social problems caused, and the trauma caused to the kids of these ferals. The money that would have been spent on these people and their kids can be put back into the education system and the childcare system, to help people who actually want and look after their kids.
Yeah, look, this sort of policy probably makes sense when you're shooting shit with some mates at the pub, but I don't see how it could possibly work, and I could think of many better and more effective things to pay parents for.
There are plenty of reasons why people may need $10k, short of being a crackhead - as an example, someone who might have lost their job, is facing issues with debts, is being threatened or coerced by family members…etc. Not to mention that the vast majority of people who would take up something like this are probably just average people who are done with having kids. Not to mention the whole moral issues surrounding this sort of policy - if you're targeting crackheads, what group would next be targeted to not have children?
If you're going to pay people $10k to influence behaviour, you might as well just pay parents $10k if their kid finishes high school or something. Would probably be more effective as a means of keeping parents responsible for their offspring.
You probably could even just go into high crime areas and just pay parents $10k if their kid hasn't been arrested by 25 or something, gives parents some stake in the game to keep their kids on the straight and narrow.
gives parents some stake in the game to keep their kids on the straight and narrow.
That would cost the Government in some or most states zero.
The problem, which we've not addressed well is how to keep people from turning to crime in the first place
Good, or any, parenting.
The issue with the "tough on crime" mob is that they have no credible plans as to how we stop people turning to crime.
See above. I'm saying that, we can't just keep allowing them out time and time again, normal people in the community don't deserve to be affected by it. People have been killed by then when they are out on bail.
if you're targeting crackheads, what group would next
You aren't targeting crackheads. You are targeting anyone who doesn't actually want kids, and wouldn't be able to care for them, but lack the intelligence, forethought or responsibilty to make the choice not to have them on their own.
If you're going to pay people $10k to influence behaviour, you might as well just pay parents $10k if their kid finishes high school or something
This involves long term thinking, as well as actually caring.
but I don't see how it could possibly work, and I could think of many better and more effective things to pay parents for.
It's very simple. As I've noted above, it directly targets the people most likely to do a terrible job of being up kids.
The financial part works out, as instead of paying welfare for the families who didn't actually want kids but had them anyway, the costs for the legal system, costs for detention, cost to the community for theft and policing, you would only have the once off "carrot" cost, rather than the lifetime "stick" cost.
Good, or any, parenting.
Sure, but what makes people bad parents in the first place.
Yes, there are those who are just bad parents full stop, but there are also those who find life stacked against them. There are also plenty of examples of kids who had perfectly fine parents, but end up turning to crime for whatever reason.
See above. I'm saying that, we can't just keep allowing them out time and time again, normal people in the community don't deserve to be affected by it. People have been killed by then when they are out on bail.
Putting people in prison only occurs after a crime has been committed. Therefore, even if you put every criminal in prison forever and never release anyone, there will still be crime. It doesn't address the root cause of what leads to crime in the first place.
You aren't targeting crackheads. You are targeting anyone who doesn't actually want kids, and wouldn't be able to care for them, but lack the intelligence, forethought or responsibilty to make the choice not to have them on their own.
Okay, so let's just say You aren't targeting crackheads. You are targeting anyone who doesn't actually want kids, and wouldn't be able to care for them, but lack the intelligence, forethought or responsibilty to make the choice not to have them on their own.
It's very simple. As I've noted above, it directly targets the people most likely to do a terrible job of being up kids. The financial part works out, as instead of paying welfare for the families who didn't actually want kids but had them anyway, the costs for the legal system, costs for detention, cost to the community for theft and policing, you would only have the once off "carrot" cost, rather than the lifetime "stick" cost.
Let's do a thought experiment then. Of the people who sign up for your scheme to get $10k (in a hypothetical world), what percentage of them are the crackheads and bad parents you're describing?
My guess is that the top three groups of subscribers will be (i) people who already have kids and do not want anymore kids, (ii) people who were not planning to have kids anyway, (iii) people under financial distress. I doubt that it would actually target the group you think it would. You would just end up spending billions of dollars (it's not just the $10k, but all of the costs associated with providing the medical treatment and care, administration…etc.), you would put a huge strain on the healthcare sector, and you just end up not really targeting the people you think you are.
FWIW, I do agree with you that we need to address crime, I just think it should be done in a scientific way, not just throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks. This is especially given the long lifecycle of crime which would take decades to see the impacts of policies. FWIW, all of the research shows that "getting caught" is the biggest deterrent to crime.
We need better community policing and enforcement. Get cops off ridiculous things like handing out fines to drivers going 4 km/h over the speed limit, and put them into communities where some of the kids (and adults for that matter) just need to be kept on the straight and narrow. Keep kids in school, bring in better teachers and role models, get jobs into the community…etc.
I grew up in a really run-down neighbourhood, probably one of the highest crime rates in suburban Melbourne - it's honestly a really shitty life out there. Many of the kids I went to school with were involved in petty crime - mostly shoplifting, some eventually got into dealing drugs and stealing cars. I saw first hand the pathway that these kids take to get into crime - parents who are working two jobs to put food on the table, hanging out with shit friends, going to a shit school that doesn't care about them…etc.
If you spent time in communities like that, you'd understand that it's not just a matter of locking people up. I'm not against locking up people who've committed crimes, the issue is that it doesn't do anything to address the underlying causal factors of why people end up in a life of crime.
Sure, but what makes people bad parents in the first place.
Having bad parents themselves generally, and having the traits I listed for bad parents in the previous post.
Yes, there are those who are just bad parents full stop, but there are also those who find life stacked against them.
Then they shouldn't bring kids into their lives. The kids have no choice, and are born into a life of misery.
There are also plenty of examples of kids who had perfectly fine parents, but end up turning to crime for whatever reason.
Of course this happens, you know stats, you understand that we always have outliers. That's what they are though, outliers, at least for this sort of b+e, vehicular theft etc.
Putting people in prison only occurs after a crime has been committed.
Correct, the problem is that they aren't putting them in jail even when a crime has been committed multiple times, they are just giving bail and put back into the community, where they offend again.
It doesn't address the root cause of what leads to crime in the first place.
Exactly, hence my idea to get people who shouldn't have kids, to not have kids. It stops the cycle.
My guess is that the top three groups of subscribers will be (i) people who already have kids and do not want anymore kids, (ii) people who were not planning to have kids anyway, (iii) people under financial distress. I doubt that it would actually target the group you think it would.
Obviously you would put in stipulations on who could apply. Between 18-28 years old, have no or only one kid etc etc. Same as any similar thing, it's never a free for all (unless we count jobkeeper).
If you don't think it would target the people I'm talking about, I don't think you have as.much experience with them as you think. Those sort of people will leap at any opportunity for easy money.
FWIW, all of the research shows that "getting caught" is the biggest deterrent to crime.
You would think it would be, but when "getting caught" has no repercussions, the deterrent goes away.
Get cops off ridiculous things like handing out fines to drivers going 4 km/h over the speed limit, and put them into communities where some of the kids (and adults for that matter) just need to be kept on the straight and narrow.
I agree that a lot of police time and effort is wasted, however if they don't have the backup of the justice system, which they don't, they have no power in the community.
I grew up in a really run-down neighbourhood, probably one of the highest crime rates in suburban Melbourne
I grew up in regional WA. I've also seen it all. The vast majority of the kids who were little shits, had parents who were the same.
Back when my son was in year 1, he was in a public school that was in a worse than average area. School was great, teachers were great. I would volunteer every now and then to do spelling/reading with the kids. The kids who were naughty or who had zero spelling ability all.had something in common, parents who didn't care.
I've had decades to observe, and almost always the child mirrors the parents, and the government and community have very little power to change the outcome for the child.
Both parties are doing the tough on crime thing now, with new laws passed early this year. Like p1 ama says, sentencing and justice is much more complex than just setting laws, and the politicians have limited reach.
Crisafulli is likely to get in, so he’ll see this first hand when he tries to make change. What he’ll most likely find is, it’s bloody expensive locking more people up for longer (so he’s going to need to keep those mining royalties he was talking of scraping), it won’t stop the revolving door, and it probably won’t reduce crime rates.
The problem is there’s people damaged from a young age growing up in entirely inappropriate circumstances and these are often the ones who end up on this path. You can’t reasonably lock someone up for a long time unless a truely serious crime is committed. So even if someone is at high risk of committing a serious crime, you can’t lock them up indefinitely, and it’s unlikely a politician could change this. The long game is doing a lot more intensive intervention with families where there is drug use, extreme poverty and/or violence. Improving public schools to cater for children growing up in these environments with small classes, case workers etc. The child protection and youth programs workforce would need to be quadrupled to achieve this but better that than quadruple prison officers.
A government that is desperate because it is looking certain to be thrown out has found something its done that is popular, and is trying to milk it for whatever it can.
As it will always be, while we have a duopoly political party type system, in a country filled with partisan voters, who possess small picture aspirations.
So 500,000 stabbing victims per year on public transport in QLD?
Sigh, perhaps try again, and click the "reply" button next time. While you're at it, look up "exaggeration" and "hyperbole" in the dictionary. In addition to that, your math isn't even correct, and you don't understand chance.
I'm still convinced you are some sort of chatbot programmed to regurgitate opinions that a first year liberal art student may have, so the math skills contribute to confirmation of this hypothesis.
"exaggeration" and "hyperbole"
First you admit being a troll, now you demonstrate rank hypocrisy .
You have a serious maths,English & comprehension deficit, as well as a shallow grasp of data analysis,facts and statistics.
Lol, says the person who failed to understand an extremely basic chance problem 😂
@brendanm: They'll be knocking on your door before mine .You fit the profile perfectly.(All wind no sail)
https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/have-i-brok…
Now that the LNP has jumped onboard this concept , it seems most of the criticism here is moot.
I just got back from 5 nights on the Gold Coast and the 50c fares were great. I only spent $8.50 in fares for those 5 nights and I did 8 or 9 return trips. I saved heaps. I wish NSW had something like this every now and then.
Thank you for coming and spreading the rest of your holiday budget far and wide at our local businesses. Please come again - hopefully the 50c fares will still available. Proves the promo is working.
I’ve always thought zone 1 should be free to get people use to using PT. Then when comfortable they would venture into zone 2 and beyond for a fee/fare.
Lived in Brisbane for the better part of a decade. Hardly used public transport because it was so infrequent and never went where I actually needed to go - gets you to the city but not the next suburb over.
Not making as much money doesn't seem like it will fund the changes that need to happen to actually make it useful.