Making traffic fines proportional to drivers' incomes, as is done in Finland, is a fairer system according to a new report from The Australia Institute, supported by Uniting Vic Tas and Financial Counselling Victoria.
With cost of living already pushing many Australians into financial difficulties, traffic fines can force low-income people into choosing between essential spending and paying fines. By contrast, traffic fines are a minor annoyance for Australia's high-income earners.
A new report from The Australia Institute outlines a more equitable model for speeding fines based on a Finnish proportional fine system.
Key points:
● Finland has a minimum fine amount but otherwise calculates a fine based on a driver's income and whether they have dependents
● This is better for equality, and sometimes catches headlines when really big fines are issued to billionaires
● Australian states are already moving in this direction: in NSW there is already a Centrelink discount.
Lower-income drivers would see average speeding fines decrease in every state and territory, while people with the highest income bracket would see their speeding fines increase.
"For a person on a low income, speeding fines can be crippling," said Alice Grundy, an Australia Institute research manager and report co-author.
"Having a billionaire pay the same $200 speeding fine as a low-income earner is unfair.
"Proportional speeding fines are more equitable because they ensure the size of the fine is set based on a driver's income.
"Australia's regressive speeding fine system effectively criminalises poverty."
Financial Counselling Victoria executive officer Zyl Hovenga-Wauchope said:
"In the land of the 'fair go' it is manifestly unfair that speeding fines are levied at a flat rate.
"While they are basically a mosquito bite for the wealthy, they can be earth shattering for the poor.
"This important report demonstrates that there is another way; we can do better. A proportional fines system is an important step in making a fairer Australia for all."
