[WA] Free Public Transport for all SmartRider Users from 14/12/24 through 05/02/25 @ Transperth

2830
[WA] Free Public Transport for all SmartRider Users from 14/12/24 through 05/02/25 @ Transperth
Go to Deal
save50 on 23/11/2024 - 22:40 perthnow.com.au (1170 clicks)
Last edited 23/11/2024 - 23:23 by 1 other user

According to PerthNow: Western Australians will be able to hop on a train, bus or ferry free this summer as part of a $14 million cost-of-living measure announced by the State Government.

The scheme, which also ran last summer, will begin on December 14 and runs until February 5, and is available to SmartRider users in Perth and regional WA.

A family of four can save up to $30 on a single trip in public transport costs through the initiative, while anyone working through the summer break could save more than $40 a week on the cost of commuting.

Passengers must tag on and off at the beginning and end of their journey to access free travel, and parking will also be free at Transperth stations with a SmartRider.

Patrons would receive travel fines if they did not use their SmartRider and tag on and off when they travel.

Travel Public Transport

Related Stores

Transperth
Transperth

Comments

  • fantombloo on 23/11/2024 - 22:45
    +23

    Digging these initiatives. Hopefully helping to normalise public transport.

  • Francis82 on 23/11/2024 - 22:46

    Fairplay labor WA

  • Mike Nolan on 23/11/2024 - 23:00
    +8

    Username checks out (if you live in QLD)

  • Jayblesz on 23/11/2024 - 23:05
    +13

    I'm moving back to WA in January just for this.

  • stickyfingers on 23/11/2024 - 23:08
    +2

    What’s W/H mean?

    • adrianhughes1998 on 23/11/2024 - 23:10
      +2

      Guessing it means you gotta use the Smart rider

      • pebee47 on 24/11/2024 - 07:55
        +1

        Yep! Just as it states.
        The good thing for Senior’s Card holders is it removes the normal time constraints for free travel.

    • dealhunter-007 on 23/11/2024 - 23:14

      Who Have

    • rustyshackleford on 23/11/2024 - 23:14
      +4

      With the help of? Watt-hour? Withold? Walter Hwhite?

    • John on 23/11/2024 - 23:34
      +2

      Western Hozies

  • bamzero on 23/11/2024 - 23:12
    +1

    I'll just need to spend $20 to get a SmartRider first.

    • entropysbane on 23/11/2024 - 23:21
      -1

      It’s weird, the government is incurring the cost of processing the fare even though the fare is free.

      And I thought Qld was silly charging 50¢ when the cost of processing the fare would cost more than 50¢. If the 50¢ is permanent might as well make the fare free, and shut the fare collection infrastructure altogether and reduce costs.

      • bamzero on 23/11/2024 - 23:26
        +15

        Well the system is already in place so I don't know how much cost they'd incur.

        But this way they can keep tabs on how many free fares they gave and put a $ value on it come election time.

        • LVlahov on 23/11/2024 - 23:32
          +10

          Also relevant for future passenger movement modelling and to work out where they need more services.

          • Jacko1235 on 24/11/2024 - 07:43
            +1

            @LVlahov: This is the only reason the kept a small price in place. Most of the ticketing systems as well are on long term contracts so you'll be still paying for them anyway.

      • nussbuster on 24/11/2024 - 01:59
        +2

        It’s weird, the government is incurring the cost of processing the fare even though the fare is free.

        What cost of processing are you referring to?

        Do you mean the electricity required to send the signal? Or the storage space required for the database record of the tag on/off event?

      • iguana on 24/11/2024 - 12:13
        +2

        Why would it cost 50 cents to process a fare? Any evidence of that cost?

    • sub102 on 23/11/2024 - 23:39
      +1

      Isn't a smartrider $10?

      • bamzero on 24/11/2024 - 00:07
        +2

        Technically yeh $10 for the card and $10 non refundable credit. I don't normally use public transport so I think of it as $20 ;)

        • Exorcist on 24/11/2024 - 01:47
          +2

          dont normally use, dont use now, easy

    • pebee47 on 24/11/2024 - 07:57
      +1

      Includes $10 worth of fares useable before or after this period.

    • pepsilid on 24/11/2024 - 11:08
      +6

      They’ll be free as per Roger’s post:

      “SmartRiders give us important information about our public transport network, including when services are at capacity.

      From 11 December, you’ll be able to pick up a free SmartRider at one of the Transperth Info Centres, or you call the Transperth Infoline on 13 64 13, and have one delivered to you. “

      • darkdinkum on 24/11/2024 - 13:28
        +1

        Would you mind sharing more information about this? I would like to know if there are any qualifying criterias?

        • bamzero on 05/12/2024 - 16:46

          There's an official statement on Transperth site now.

          Basically, one per person so needs to be registered so they can keep track and can only get from an InfoCentre or by calling 13 62 13 and registering over the phone and they'll send it out.

      • bamzero on 24/11/2024 - 13:49

        From 11 December, you’ll be able to pick up a free SmartRider at one of the Transperth Info Centres, or you call the Transperth Infoline on 13 64 13, and have one delivered to you.

        That's good to know. I had to hunt to find the comment on his Facebook post to find it. Not making it very well known are they, but nevertheless a good thing.

        I would have thought for tracking the use, the majority of regular users would already have SmartRiders so giving the card or at least lowering the cost makes sense to get the rest on board (no pun intended). Better for tourists too. I don't see why it hasn't been $5 for the card only and no forced credit, same as it is for students (if not getting free from school). When travelling to Melbourne was even better that we could add a Myki to our phone, and credit we didn't use got refunded when we left.

  • Charlie Dont Surf on 23/11/2024 - 23:12
    +3

    Thought they might've run this right up to the State Election.

    • dwbr on 24/11/2024 - 00:33
      +5

      Clearly it is.

    • brokenxsmile on 24/11/2024 - 08:47
      +2

      It’s running right up until the WA Govt enters caretaker mode on 5 Feb.

      Might be some caretaker conventions that mean it can be free between then and the election on 8 March

    • chrism238 on 24/11/2024 - 08:47
      +3

      They (legally) have to stop it when the current Govt becomes the caretaker Govt.

    • lachlantula on 23/11/2024 - 23:32
      +10

      doing things that benefit the general public = bribery?

      • LVlahov on 23/11/2024 - 23:33

        Slap dash last minute temporary things that don't really make a difference but sound good right before an election is due… yes.

        • paaj on 23/11/2024 - 23:37
          +10

          But didn't they also do this last year? Plus making fare free for school kids all year?
          I'm not denying it helps with their election but they're probably still better than WA libs.

            • paaj on 23/11/2024 - 23:53
              +6

              @LVlahov: I suppose we're lucky with the resource industry and the GST cut we get. That being said I thought the previous Lib government added a lot to our debt.
              Let's be honest though, all pollies are crooked and will do anything to stay in power.
              Let's just enjoy the free transport while we can eh

              • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 00:00
                -7

                @paaj: Debt in WA hasn't been an issue under either government but that is the point, both governments in the past had it in their political interests to manage things in that way, even if the progressive half of the Labor Party wanted to do differently. Now they are free to attack the earning parts of the economy, and spend more profusely which will cause problems later on.

                Which we already massively saw with them pushing through laws regarding land use and First Nations rights, which thankfully we would have ended up seeing 'French' style protests by our farmers if they had stayed.

                But next time the targets can be made smaller, and such moves made again. You understand a government can get away with a lot more if the only way to stop it is essentially to protest the government to a shutdown vs them having to go and negotiate of just simply be unable to pass unpopular legislation in the first place.

            • team teri on 24/11/2024 - 02:56
              +15

              @LVlahov: Easily the worst government WA had during my time here was the one of Colin Barnett.

              Just one single policy they were pushing back then would have done more damage than anything that went wrong since: privatising the electricity companies.

              Fortunately for everyone in WA they lost the election before being able to sell off the assets to their mates and make us all victims of the same sort of exploitation that the Eastern states continue to see.

              And to think the chair sniffer was next in line to become the state premier…

              Good riddance, I hope we never see the Libs in power again. Not in WA and not in Canberra.

              • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 03:18

                @team teri: That's the point though and why what Labor has done makes them the worst ever. WA's electoral system was very good at preventing bad policy from getting up. And the most major check and balance on that has been removed.

                Instead of one bad policy getting up (that didn't) you now have a systemic issue where hundreds of bad policies will get up over the ensuing decades that would not have previously.

                You've got the system that will end up privatising things now (always unpopular in the regions by the way, the political sector now marginalised), just as Victoria's assets are now set to go off in a fire sale (the few remaining ones they have) to pay down the debt they have no other means of repaying.

            • Geekomatic on 24/11/2024 - 05:29
              +3

              @LVlahov: In general, Labor runs the economy(s), best:

              https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/09/labor-…

              • robert2024 on 24/11/2024 - 10:51
                +1

                @Geekomatic: "This methodology, quite plainly, takes no account of lasting policy reforms that deliver longer run benefits to the economy that do not show up in the term of the government implementing them."

                i.e. clickbait.

              • brettd on 24/11/2024 - 10:56
                +1

                @Geekomatic: Im no liberal (but admittedly not a fan of the Kook). I would just point out that if the impact of resources boom (especially the construction of the LNG plants) was taken out it may not be so clear. These are multi-decade projects (supported by both govts) but the construction spend was heavily concentrated in a relatively narrow time period.

            • z28 on 24/11/2024 - 14:17

              @LVlahov:

              The stabilising force (a legislative council that balanced urban and rural representation and via this progressive and conservative leanings) that helped WA so well for 120 odd years

              More like gerrymander for the last 120 years. At least now democracy is back in play, one vote one value ?

              • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 15:53
                +2

                @z28: Yes, you have the version of democracy that serves the media and those who do not think more deeply, but perhaps you have not truly worked out what the foundation of democracy is, or why the forefathers of democracy chose not to input it in the manner you have come to believe in.

                (Hint: it isn't one vote one value, but could only ever be people near to a thing having the greatest say over that thing.. i.e. their lives, which rule by urban areas over regional does not match, and note the system as it was did not allow regional rule over urban, rather a balance where a meshing of views and horse trading was required).

                If the regions - the produces of net surplus real value, are to be overruled by the cities who produce a net deficit of real value - what is in it for the regions in such a relationship? Would it not be more democratic for them, to rule themselves without overrule from afar?

                And how democratic in the true sense of the form is it for people in one place, to overrule what happens in another?

                The compromise between these two things, and if you do not have compromise that serves both interests you are effectively stepping into imperialism (and yes democracies can be imperial in nature, which the left is now blind to when they are the proponents of it) is what has served WA so well.

                The fool does not know he is breaking something while he improves it, because he has not considered the situation from the angles that are not self-serving.

                • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 16:10

                  @LVlahov: And if the above still seems that I am really pushing an anti democratic line perhaps pushing out the concept to one that shows the extremes will make it more obvious that I tell the truth.

                  Imagine earth joins a galactic confederation of aliens, where there is a "democratic* policy that the confederation will be ruled by "one vote one value" such that it will be all citizens across the covered planets that vote, where the majority vote rules. So now what happens on earth, what governs the rules earth should live by, is determined by the 99% of the votes that are made off earth, whilst those on earth have just a 1% input into the galaxies' direction.

                  And now all these things are true: we have "true" democracy, and earthlings have virtually nil effect on the direction of the galaxy, and virtually nil effect on the policies that will govern their own space. Thus making a lie of one vote one value and also a very strong illustration why diversity itself is inimical to practical and functional democracy that is not imperialistic and itself anti democratic.

                  And if you go back to the ancient Greeks you will find that in their discourse. They realised, and yet we don't (most of us).
                  Centralisation of power in urban areas (and federal and supranational bodies) serves vested interests, and a vested interest is always best served by people who think they are fighting power not serving it.

                • z28 on 24/11/2024 - 16:47

                  @LVlahov:

                  Yes, you have the version of democracy that serves the media and those who do not think more deeply, but perhaps you have not truly worked out what the foundation of democracy is, or why the forefathers of democracy chose not to input it in the manner you have come to believe in

                  I look up democracy here (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy)
                  and gerrymander here (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gerrymander)

                  So please point me to other version of democracy or argument that seems to transform gerrymander to democracy.

                  Centralisation of power in urban areas (and federal and supranational bodies) serves vested interests, and a vested interest is always best served by people who think they are fighting power not serving it

                  You don't think gerrymander has vested interest ?

                  • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 18:11
                    +1

                    @z28: A mistake here can be thinking that gerrymanders are always negative, or always go against the principles of democracy rather than re-inforce them, neither of us have difficulty with the definition of the word.

                    Although, on the definition, in common context gerrymander would be consistent with the idea of trying to marginalise a set of voices, or a province, the original system we had was actually intent on balancing urban and rural needs (not marginalising one or the other), in much the same way as the state house of review in federal parliament was weighted to balance larger state and smaller state needs (not marginalise larger state needs, otherwise they would not have agreed to the weighting).

                    Note the concept that people A rule over people B is totally inconsistent with the intent of democracy "we rule over ourselves" i.e. people A rule over people A, people B rule over people B, but is totally consistent with imperialism and despotism (rule of one group over another).

                    So it is over-ruling this in context that obeys the line of thinking which "gerrymander" is associated with (i.e. an attempt to marginalise).

                    A change was made to marginalise the views of rural and conservative voters, consistent with the spirit of a gerrymander in a way the original system was not.

                    The system we had was consistent with trying to balance views and electorates, not marginalise them, where the new system input by Labor does just that.

                    You get one view when you take a simplistic read, but a much deeper one if you truly pick through the elements of the issue.

                    • z28 on 24/11/2024 - 19:48

                      @LVlahov:

                      simplistic

                      Certainly not but I read enough to know no system is perfect and gerrymander is the worst of them.

                      • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 20:39
                        +1

                        @z28: And the basis of your view is that a gerrymander is the worst of them on the basis of it being anti democratic & marginalising which is the approach Labor just took.

                        To use political power to disenfranchise another group.

                        What existed in WA previously was not a gerrymander. It was a balance of power specifically erected to prevent a voice being able to be marginalised and ignored, the very opposite (in sentiment). It DID NOT allow rural voices to over-ride urban to a point urban voices would be unnecessary to win in order to wield power and yet the reverse here is true.

                        Labor's introduced changes allow regional areas to be entirely ignored, in both houses of parliament, and allow rural people to be ruled by urban, without the necessity to balance their interest. The epitome of an anti-democratic result, and marginalising and disenfranchisement of a voting sector.

                        Previously urban voices were not marginalised and still carried the weight of seats in the lower house of government. The specific purpose of the upper house has effectively been removed, or if that is going too far at least significantly reduced.

                        • z28 on 24/11/2024 - 21:49

                          @LVlahov: Perhaps we should leave it here and agree to disagree. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

            • offal spokesman on 26/11/2024 - 15:34
              -1

              @LVlahov: Much of this is wrong (eg the "Huge Defeat" in Qld)

              This is just a LNP ubercapitalist complaining about goivernments working for people instead of corporations.

              Of course i cant prove any of my ramblings, but mark my words, in 10 years youll see. :)

        • Paccers on 24/11/2024 - 00:35
          +4

          Here's a link from the WA Gov's media statement for the same initiative they carried out in 2023-2024 summer.

          Don't let a 5 second Google search get in the way of your whinge @LVlahov!

          • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 00:50
            -2

            @Paccers: The fact you are even making a post like that indicates you aren't really parsing what the discussion has been in the thread dude. Note "high on demonstrable nothings". i.e. yes, I understand the government has repeatedly taken such actions. It has very little oversight or ability for anyone to stop them in the current parliament and it is much harder to hold them to account thanks to their rearrangement of the political system.

            • Exorcist on 24/11/2024 - 01:52
              -2

              @LVlahov: you must be fun at parties

              • LVlahov on 24/11/2024 - 02:10
                -3

                @Exorcist: Depends if someone wants to hear group think parroted back at them or engage with realty.

    • sw00p on 23/11/2024 - 23:33
      -1

      Citation required.

      • LVlahov on 23/11/2024 - 23:35

        Not for anyone that was born pre 1985 (because people don't usually need a citation for things they lived through).

        • sw00p on 23/11/2024 - 23:39
          +1

          They might, however, provide some auto-ethnographic data that they unpack with reference to a news article at the very least.

          • LVlahov on 23/11/2024 - 23:54

            @sw00p: Finding specific citations for minor events and news stories that took place pre-internet would be a pretty serious effort dude. Every news story and every political move being recallable with an internet search is a 2000 to 2024 thing, not an 80's and 90's thing.

    • tanastra on 23/11/2024 - 23:44

      QLD done it and still lost

      • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 00:16
        +2

        Not relevant to WA - as both major parties in Qld made the same election promise.
        So who ever won, it would be 50c fares.

        LNP price matched promised fare - which neutralised it as an incentive to vote for ALP.
        So unlikely an influence on Qld election outcome.

        Still 50c fares in Qld under LNP.

    • miicah on 24/11/2024 - 08:27
      +9

      Money spent that benefits me: smart policy

      Money spent that benefits other people: waste of money, vote buying

      • ProlapsedHeinous on 24/11/2024 - 12:14
        +8

        As someone who almost never uses public transport, Id rather they make public transport as close to free or free as possible, even if they underwrite it with higher rego or other revenue increases. The more users there are, the less congestion on the roads. Basically you're paying to have less traffic when you think about it. It's a win win.

  • PissLUR on 23/11/2024 - 23:58

    Nice

  • shaidas on 24/11/2024 - 00:35
    +4

    I think it is great for everyone in WA..no move in any State by any party is made without an eye on the votes that is democracy today.. a cut throat business ..so whinging will not help because no one cares .. basically it boils down to spend 20 dollars and free transport from Dec 14 to Feb 10…what ..who..why ..is irrelevant to the poor who will actually use it and that is a good thing and a good move by the govt in WA

    • pebee47 on 14/12/2024 - 14:43

      I'm an old thing who uses the bus at my front door anytime I wish to go into the CBD. Now its free 24/7 means I can forget about planning departure times.

      • shaidas on 14/12/2024 - 23:23

        Yay ..look at that ..already working for people who need it the most..Well done WA ..excellent move and to the whingers who have never visited any other country as privliged as ours except for Bali and Bangkok or Phuket ..this is a privilige ..celebrate it along with your life instead of whinging and comparing to economies lower in scale than ours..

  • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 00:56
    +1

    as part of a $14 million cost-of-living measure announced by the State Government.

    Band-aid solution this is. Short-term basically.

    The WA govt should actually help its citizens attain self-home ownership (home as a PRIMARY RIGHT FIRST; and minimise the reliance of a home as an investment). That would help address a lot of the cost-of-living issues at its roots.

    (An example of this method of govt helping its people is the Netherlands. It has a high rate of self-home ownership in the world at %80+, and is aiming to get it to %90+)

    These other short-term band-aids solutions should be done as bonus after that.

    • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 01:10
      -1

      However, the Netherlands is experiencing an acute housing crisis, with affordability and availability issues.

      In the Netherlands it's a very different approach to housing, with over 29% renting in 2022
      It is one of the top renting countries in the world

      It has a high rate of Social Housing, with housing associations owning about 75% of rental properties. Dutch have the security to rent long term (sometimes for life), unlike here.

      • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 01:25

        The Norwegian Housing Model

        According to Statistics Norway, nearly 80 percent of people in Norway live in a home owned by someone in the household. This makes Norway one of the European countries with the highest homeownership rate.

    • shaidas on 24/11/2024 - 01:26
      +1

      18 million people in Netherlands vs 26 million in population out here is how you compare your home ownership and theirs ? ..how about comparing to the 1.2 billion people living in India and feeling happy and not whinging ? You reckon if free public travel was introduced in India or Netherlands anyone would complain ? As far as home ownership goes remember stats are based on numbers …our numbers are higher than Netherlands ..we have a LOT more land than Netherlands but most is uninhabitable without investment

      • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 01:29
        +1

        The WA govt

        Read

        WA’s population is under & close to 3M (as of March 2024) Absolutely achievable as a state, and it can become a model of which the other states emulate.

        • robert2024 on 24/11/2024 - 10:58
          +1

          "Our" leaders, right across Australia, do not care about housing people nor about their living standards. Most of the current housing problem could be solved by eliminating foreign student work rights, parent visas, creating a FIRB with teeth, and allowing skilled migration only when the pay is in the 80th percentile or higher.

          • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 11:02
            +1

            @robert2024: Sad that’s the case.

            Those leaders are chosen by its people. Unless that’s what its people also want? I’d doubt.

            Positive change is forthcoming at one point - with action and optimism. I hope it’s sooner rather than later.

            • robert2024 on 24/11/2024 - 15:08
              +1

              @YoursTruly: When you import so many people that the majority of the population has dual (or more) citizenship, "the people" are merely sums on a spreadsheet.

              • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 15:14

                @robert2024: Wow! that’s puts a spin to it and does makes sense in a curious way.

    • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 01:54

      the Netherlands’ Next-Level Housing Crisis

      Seems things aren't as rosy in the Netherlands as you make out!

      the Netherlands @70% has a lower rate of home ownership compared with most European countries!!
      Just ahead of Australia @66%!

      The Netherlands still has a renting culture, with over 29% of people renting in mainly community owned rental properties - not run for investment & tax gains like mainly private rentals here.

      Housing models that work in 1 country often don't work in others!!

      Our emphasis of home ownership has been on investment income, capital gains & tax minimisation. Governments would be very brave to take on changes to those vested interests😜

      • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 03:15

        Your post has changed more that 4 times

        • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 03:33
          +1

          How's the count on this reply😄
          Just added more information & links to back up claims. Similar to what you did above.

          Have experience here & overseas in providing practical accommodation & services - especially with homeless. Conducted cross-cultural studies to understand how it would affect local adoption. Dealt with business & Govt to achieve implementation.
          …And have spent time in the Netherlands.

          Better than just promoting idealistic / theoretical ideas that may not work here - due to very different (especially political) cultures.

          [Some people are so driven to implement a great solution - without first understanding the problem. They then don't understand why the implementation is not accepted & fails.]

          • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 08:30

            @INFIDEL: 👏

            Most of your links are sus. (The guardian? Wikipedia? The uncle? Statista?)
            Anyone can find info to support their stance even if it’s questionable.

            Have experience here & overseas in providing practical accommodation & services - especially with homeless.

            Someone can be experienced cooking for a lifetime as well, but it doesn’t make them a professional cook.

            Some people are so driven to implement a great solution - without first understanding the problem.

            Better than just promoting idealistic / theoretical ideas that may not work here - due to very different (especially political) cultures.

            Such cop out responses - assuming things - but go on, satisfy yourself with that.

            I do have lots of Norwegian contacts who underwent first hand support to attain self-owned housing from the govt. It is not something I’d call ‘experience’ - but to hear their story and see those fellows get that level of support and have their lives stabilised is a sight to behold - and inspiring.

            • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 13:08
              -1

              @YoursTruly: You can't just transplant a model from a very different culture here.

              An example of a very successful Norwegian model that is unlikely to work in Australia…

              EV vehicles

              In 2023, 82.38% of new cars sold in Norway were electric vehicles (EVs), making it the country with the highest adoption rate of EVs in the world.

              Why so successful?
              And why it wouldn't work here?

              Oil and gas wealth: Norway is a major oil and gas producer. It can afford it.
              Political goals: The Norwegian government has set a goal for the entire car fleet to be zero-emission by 2025.
              Incentives: The Norwegian government offers generous tax rebates and other financial benefits for purchasing EVs.
              Charging infrastructure: Norway has invested in public EV chargers.

              Here EVs are used by the Coalition to win votes in highly emotive political campaigns.
              They're stealing the tradies vehicles
              They're robbing us of our weekends
              Mainstream Media campaign against EVs - they are a fire risk…
              Those campaigns work for those vested interests.

              That's a lot different to Norway!
              So trying to introduce that Norwegian model here is bound to fail, unless local thinking changes dramatically.

              Likely similar with housing.

              • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 13:14
                -1

                @INFIDEL:

                You can't just transplant a model from a very different culture here.

                That was not the suggestion in my post, mate - but merely an example.

                (An example of this method of govt…

                We & our govt can learn from that - an established working example.

                EV & housing as similar equals? Those two are different spectrums. Suggesting that one of those may fail thus the other will/ may follow suit? Nah mate.

                • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 13:25
                  -1

                  @YoursTruly: Strange? You are the one pushing the Norwegian Housing Model!

                  Your link points out the very different cultural thinking between our countries. Which may explain it success there.

                  I am certainly not against good ideas. But have the frustrating experience of trying to bring about change to Australian Housing for a long time.

                  Here "Housing is the Australian Dream", but not necessarily the reality.
                  There are so many vested interests in housing.

                  But obviously you don't understand!

                  • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 13:35

                    @INFIDEL:

                    You are the one pushing the Norwegian Housing Model!

                    Yes I know and I did. As a working ‘example’ to refer to/ learn from/ borrow from or adopt - not to ‘transplant.’

                    I am certainly not against good ideas. But have the frustrating experience of trying to bring about change to Australian Housing for a long time.

                    Keep on the good fight. Good change is bound to happen with action and perseverance.

                    • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 14:51
                      -1

                      @YoursTruly: Easy to have or promote a good idea.
                      Much harder to act on it!!

                      Have "transplanted" (of course adapted to local conditions) a worker collective system from the Basque Country (Spain).

                      It was at a time of major changes to work here.

                      South Australia seemed more open to different ideas. I was appointed to a Govt committee there examining future directions for Australia. In conjunction with the Director of Swedish Institute for Futures Studies.

                      With many made redundant. A worker led cooperative offered an alternative work structure.

                      It was a successful model where it originated, but it failed here at that time.

                      While offering work & pay, it did not suit the local work culture.
                      It was not what they expected!

                      It was not attractive to local workers - requiring more involvement in decision making & responsibly.
                      And importantly - lacked security for their mortgage!

                      It was worth a try, but our work regulations & structure was not at all conducive to an alternative.

                      In another State, my attempts to help people see alternatives to cultural norms around housing etc, were attacked by the State Government. They weren't going to allow people to think for themselves!!
                      Just keep consuming the same old BS😜

                      Only 1 low cost inner city house was funded & built based on my ideas.
                      I provided temporary accommodation funded by a Social Enterprise I established & ran - employing, training & supporting unemployed.

                      It did attract very positive attention from architects, like my housing work in Adelaide.

                      BUT, in a front page News Ltd article, I was accused of attempting to overthrow their Govt😲
                      That was all news to me! Not even Govt people believed the Fake News!
                      It was being used to justify a new repressive Police Powers Act, according to my lawyers.

                      So change when it doesn't fit with local norms & is politically accepted - is a frustrating & slow process.

                      Finally set up my own business - consulting corporate & other clients to think differently. Much easier to change 1 person / business at a time. Was well rewarded💰

                      And learnt the importance of influential contacts.
                      Seeding ideas they might be able to promote as their own.
                      Even Diplomats of foreign Governments - very helpful having a contact when travelling there. To inform me of local issues & culture.

                • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 13:35

                  @YoursTruly: Ah you added to your comment😉

                  EVs: was just an example of a successful Norwegian model.

                  I was pointing out how different our cultural, political thinking & policies are when it comes to making changes.

                  Plus taxation & government income to afford those models.

                  And why a change may be easy in another country, but nearly impossible here.

                  Due to vested interests here & seeing housing as mainly a money making scheme💰

                  Similarly to EV policy, Housing is used as a political football, to attract votes & donations from those likely to financially benefit.

                  Change is always cultural & political.
                  Good luck trying to change all that😜

                  In most cases - self interest rules.

                  Change is frightening to many - when so much of private wealth is tied to house prices. So almost any change will be feared & resisted.

                  When people don't own property, then most want a change so they can buy. But most own homes (or hope to) - so don't want change that may risk their "investment".

    • team teri on 24/11/2024 - 03:03
      +1

      The problem with home ownership is that so many people want to own the same homes. Well, homes in the same areas. And they keep outbidding each other for a scarce resource.

      The state is big enough to spread out, if that ever happens, home ownership will become affordable again. Doubt it will.

  • umoddbro on 24/11/2024 - 01:21
    -8

    Prefer a fuel voucher instead….

    • INFIDEL on 24/11/2024 - 02:02
      +3

      Save money by catching public transport💰

      • umoddbro on 24/11/2024 - 02:12
        -5

        No thanks too many derros

        • team teri on 24/11/2024 - 03:04
          +1

          Buy an electric car and install solar. Then tyres are the main expense of transport…

          • dp1 on 24/11/2024 - 12:45
            +2

            @team teri: I have an EV charged for free from solar, and I still prefer to take public transport to the CBD because Perth CBD driving and parking is an expensive PITA.

        • wavesgreen on 24/11/2024 - 03:10

          Befriend them and then offer to take their empty Jim Beam and Monster cans off their hands to add to your bag of empty containers that you are using the free PT to do a recycling run for anyway.

  • shaidas on 24/11/2024 - 01:33
    +2

    Good for WA I say ..good for the people who need it the most

  • hashtagbargain on 24/11/2024 - 04:55
    +1

    Cmon vic wanna see you compete!

    • HamBoi69 on 24/11/2024 - 07:10

      Something something budget blowouts something something….

    • hopper on 14/12/2024 - 10:40

      I would rather wish they don't hike the prices this year 😭

  • prodnus on 24/11/2024 - 10:37
    +1

    Meanwhile in NSW…

    • YoursTruly on 24/11/2024 - 10:44
      +1

      NSW

      Sometimes see this as NSfW 😅

  • mitty on 24/11/2024 - 12:51
    +2

    Meanwhile myki still costs $5.30 to travel one tram stop. Yay Victoria

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join