Search

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

Josephine Williams had been leaving her car in a gravel clearing at Westgate in Auckland, alongside other commuters to catch the bus into the city for months. The New Zealand woman was left with a "nasty surprise" when she returned from work on Monday to find a NZ $85 ($77) fine sitting on her windshield. "To my unfortunate surprise - and many others - I was greeted by an $85 parking ticket for a breach and a flyer from Wilson Parking saying paid parking had started that day," Williams told Stuff. "But what breach exactly was made? How was I supposed to know paid parking started that day when there was nothing at all displayed anywhere in the car park?" Williams claimed that the Wilson Parking car park had been set up around her already parked car, even providing dash cam footage that showed her pulling into the gravel clearing at 7.45am, with no paid parking signs or Wilson branding in sight. By 6pm, a large red and white Wilson sign had been put up at the entrance, with "12 hours for $4" written on it. "Wilson deliberately put their sign up sometime after 9am and then took it upon themselves to fine every single car that was already parked there from the morning," Williams said. "$85 is a lot of money - it would have been two weeks' worth of grocery shopping for me," she added. "I'm lucky that I know the law and my rights, but some other people might not. What about students or the elderly or people who don't know English well?" She estimated that there was usually around 50 and 100 cars in the gravel clearing. Wilson argued that the carpark was always there and they had just added more signage, but have since waived Williams' fine after she lodged a request to have it reviewed by Parking Enforcement Services. Wilson Parking also said that they had started to set up the car park and installed a "clear signage" on April 22. "It was not set up around parked cars on 29 April as suggested," a Wilson spokesperson said. "Several payments were made by customers via the Parkmate app from 22 April proving that signage on the site was clear and effective," they said. They added that on April 29 more signs were added to all entry points of the car park. "In acknowledgment of the increased signage added on the 29th at the entry we've made the decision to refund all payments made until 30 April and waive any breach notices issued up to this date." They also denied issuing any breach notices before the signs were put up. "Payment options were available and signed from 22 April - but no infringement notices were issued prior to the 29th." Images: Stuff

Legal

Experience a unique glimpse into the private life of Princess Diana

When you think of the royal family, most people picture their most high profile moments and the same anecdotes that have been recycled for years. But there is much more to them as a family, and as an institution, than meets the eye. For many royal fans, they have their favourite members of the family who they share an unspoken affinity with, and are often yearning to find out more about the princes and princesses. Around the world, there are few members of the royal family who are as fiercely loved as Princess Diana. Now, for the first time in Sydney, royal fanatics can take a never-before-seen look at the emotional private journey of the People’s Princess through the lens of one of her most trusted confidants: official royal photographer Anwar Hussein. <a href="https://princessdianaexperience.com/sydney/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Princess Diana: Accredited Access Exhibition</a>, launching in Sydney on Wednesday April 10th, reveals the inside look at royal life from Diana’s perspective, while exploring the deep personal relationships between a princess and her photographer. Royal fans will learn about all sides of the late Princess of Wales, from how she portrayed herself in the public eye, to how she interacted with her inner circle behind closed doors. While the one of a kind exhibition covers all things Princess Diana, royal fans will also see the parallels of Anwar’s relationship with Diana, compared to Anwar’s sons, who went on to photograph Diana’s sons Prince William and Prince Harry, and their lasting relationships with the royal family at large. Throughout the exhibit, Anwar Hussein and his sons Samir and Zak, share their first-hand accounts of the stories behind the world-famous moments of Princess Diana and her family, recounting experiences they shared with the royals over their collective four decades working side-by-side with the royal family. Named one of the "Top 12 Immersive Experiences Around the World You Need to Visit” by CNN, the Princess Diana: Accredited Access Exhibition has sold out in Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, and Puerto Rico, and recently wowed audiences in Melbourne. Guests of the Princess Diana: Accredited Access Exhibition will embark on a captivating exploration through various themed sections covering all aspects of royal life, and will be guided by an easy to use audio guide. When arriving at the exhibit (which is housed in an accessible building for those with mobility issues), guests will be instructed to download an audio guide on their smartphone, letting guests move through the exhibition at their own pace. After being provided headphones, guests control the easy to use audio guide at their own speed, with each photograph corresponding to a number on the guide where the audience can learn the inside story behind each captured moment. If guests are hard of hearing, fear not. Each part of the audio guide also features the written script of the Hussein’s commentary, making sure visitors don’t miss any vital information. <img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2024/04/Diana-instructions.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /> Working your way through the exhibit can take anywhere up to one hour, with royal fans bound to leave with a new sense of connection and understanding to princess Diana’s private life, and the royal family at large. Princess Diana: Accredited Access Exhibition, presented by leading entertainment discovery platform<a href="http://feverup.com/sydney" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> Fever</a>, in partnership with global entertainment agency, SBX Group is a family-friendly experience that will leave visitors with a new perspective on royal life. Sessions run from 9am to 3pm on Wednesday to Friday, and 9am to 6pm on Saturday and Sunday, with the exhibition running until the end of May 2024. This is not a story you have heard before. Whether you are a hard-core fan or new to her legacy, you will be blown away by the fascinating depth and detail shared by the Hussein family. To purchase tickets, head to<a href="http://princessdianaexperience.com/sydney" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> princessdianaexperience.com/sydney</a>, to not miss out on this incredibly unique insight into the behind the scenes world of the royal family. Image credits: Supplied

Art

Politicians slam Albanese's "hypocritical" private jet use

Anthony Albanese has been urged to consider his carbon footprint after his controversial usage of a private jet. A group of independent MPs have asked the Prime Minister to offset his carbon usage after it was revealed that he and two other ministers chartered two private planes to attend the same clean energy event in the NSW Hunter Valley. Albanese was joined by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen and Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic to fly to the region from Canberra on Thursday to announce a $1bn to support Australian manufacturing in solar technology. Teal MP Zali Steggall urged the leaders to offset their carbon emissions from the short journey when it was revealed that the three men flew separately in two separate Royal Australian Air Force jets. “I certainly hope they were offsetting the emissions of those two jets with companies, like Green fleet and other places like that where you can offset the emissions of your travel,” Ms Stegall told Sunrise. “I certainly hope and I call on the Minister for Climate Change to do that. Look, as a lowly independent, we don’t get the luxuries of flying in the ADF jets.” Private jets have a dramatically higher carbon footprint per passenger than commercial planes, with the average private jet emitting two tonnes of carbon an hour. Mr Bowen defended the use of the planes, saying the use of two private jets was a decision made by the airforce for safety reasons. “The Prime Minister has a large jet available to him and that would normally be what we take,” he said on Monday. “The runway at Scone wasn’t strong enough to take a large jet so the air force … decided for two jets.” Opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie said the government should consider “jet pooling” and should make a conscious effort to cut down on the harmful use of private jets, which emit more carbon per passenger than commercial planes. “I fail to see why these guys, when they’re leaving from the same place on the same day, within 30 minutes of each other, couldn’t have either shared the plane or indeed, some of them, if they couldn’t all fit, use the commercial options that were available to them to fly direct from Canberra to Newcastle to make the announcement,” Senator McKenzie said. “It’s quite incredible.” Image credits: Getty Images

Travel Trouble

"Unfair" parking fines could soon be a thing of the past

In recent years, road users in one Australian state have found themselves at the receiving end of unwelcome surprises in their mailboxes. An experimental parking fine process, initiated with the aim of streamlining administrative procedures, has instead garnered significant backlash from unsuspecting motorists. However, relief seems to be on the horizon as the New South Wales Government steps in to rectify the situation. The issue revolves around the introduction of ticketless parking fines, a system that was implemented with the intention of simplifying the issuance of penalties for parking violations. Under this scheme, parking officers could send details of fines directly to Revenue NSW, which would then dispatch infringement notices either by post or through the Service NSW app. However, what was meant to be a simple and streamlined modernisation effort has led to a surge in revenue from fines and a subsequent erosion of trust in the system. Concerns about the fairness and transparency of ticketless fines have been mounting, prompting action from the NSW government. Reports indicate that Finance Minister Courtney Houssos has written to all 128 local councils in the state, urging them to halt further adoption of the ticketless parking fine system. Instead, councils have been instructed to revert to traditional ticketing methods and ensure that drivers are promptly made aware of fines at the time of the offence. The move comes in response to a range of issues highlighted by critics of the ticketless system. One major concern is the lack of immediate notification, which diminishes the deterrent effect of fines and makes it difficult for motorists to contest them effectively. Without receiving timely notification, drivers may struggle to gather evidence or address issues such as inadequate signage, hidden signs, or other circumstances that could warrant a review of the fine. Organisations like the National Roads and Motorists' Association (NRMA) have been vocal opponents of the ticketless scheme, labelling it as "unfair" and criticising its impact on transparency. According to NRMA spokesperson Peter Khoury, the system reduces the ability of drivers to contest fines, thereby undermining their rights and contributing to a loss of community trust in the administration of fines. The NSW government's intervention signals a recognition of these concerns and a commitment to restoring confidence in the fines system. By prioritising immediate notification for drivers, authorities aim to address the shortcomings of the ticketless parking fine process. The decision to reverse the experimental system comes amid staggering revenue figures, with nearly $140 million generated from ticketless fines in 2023 alone. While the financial gains may be substantial, they come at the expense of public trust and fairness, prompting a much-needed course correction. As Minister Houssos asserts, providing immediate notification to drivers is not only the right thing to do but also a crucial step towards rebuilding community trust. By ensuring that drivers are promptly informed of fines and have the opportunity to contest them, authorities can strike a balance between effective enforcement and procedural fairness in managing parking violations. As road users await the reinstatement of traditional ticketing methods, they can take solace in the prospect of a fairer and more transparent fines system in the future. Images: City of Sydney

Legal

"Other cities will follow": Big trouble ahead for SUV owners

Paris residents have voted to charge SUVs triple the cost of parking compared to standard sized cars in a bid to tackle air pollution and improve safety. 54.6 per cent of residents voted to pass the plan, with the new parking tariffs expected to start in September. The price increase will apply to on-street parking for vehicles with combustion or hybrid engines weighing more than 1.6 tonnes and electric vehicles weighing over two tonnes. The change means that the vehicles will pay €18 (A$29.69) an hour for parking in the centre of Paris, up from €6 (A$9.90), and €12 (A$19.79) an hour in the rest of the city, up from €4 (A$6.60). "Parisians have made a clear choice … other cities will follow,” Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo said. Experts are onboard with the move and believe the Australia should do the same thing. Urban access consultant and author of the book Rethinking Parking David Mepham said that the move could help improve safety as: “SUVs are actually some of the most unsafe vehicles on the road for pedestrians with a fatality rate that is significantly higher than other vehicles.” “The injury and fatality rate should be a concern in highly pedestrianised areas such as city centres.” In 2022 alone, SUV and light commercial vehicles made up 76.8 per cent of car sales, coming in eighth on the top 10 vehicle sales according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. With spaces in the cities limited, Mepham added: “If you’ve got a larger car you should expect to pay more for that, you should pay for what you use.” Standards Australia has recently proposed to increase the size of off-street parking spaces by 20 centimetres in Australia, from 5.4 metres to 5.6 metres, which would make it easier for larger vehicles to park, but would limit car spaces. Executive director of the Australia Institute, Richard Dennis also said that SUV owners need to face the consequences of owning a larger vehicle. “If we want to drive much bigger cars, are we going to widen all of our city streets, are we going to have less car parking spaces?” he said. “Because if we want to drive these cars we need to own the consequences.” Marion Terrill, an independent transport expert, also agreed that higher parking fees for large vehicles are “absolutely reasonable.” “If you want more of it you can pay more, it’s the same principle as paying for parking at all," she said. Image: Getty

Travel Trouble

"It's just not fair": Driver slams council for misleading parking fine

A furious motorist has taken aim at a Sydney council's parking solution that resulted in an "outrageous" and "unjustified" fine. Ben drives to the Campbelltown train station in South West Sydney every day for his workday commute, and has recently been forced to find alternative parking plans due to a major disruption. A multi-deck carpark is being built near the station to accommodate the influx of traffic, but while the site is under construction, a makeshift parking lot has been set up. While the new car park will add 500 parking bays when completed, residents have claimed the council has drastically reduced the number of spaces in the meantime. Ben told <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/sydney-parking-rules-drivers-outrage-over-tiny-detail-in-parking-fine/4cfe4d45-c311-4587-b68a-fc1d017675fc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">9news.com.au</a> parking had become "a nightmare" since the temporary lot opened, leaving many motorists with no option but to park along the fence line. It's this act that saw Ben receive a $129 parking fine in the mail. He was outraged when he was issued a fine on February 9th for "not stand vehicle in a marked parking space" when he had no other parking option. "They've advertised that the temporary car park is the same amount of spaces lost during the construction, which is severely incorrect," he said. "I can only assume they are fining loads of drivers as that space along the fence line is always full of cars parked the same as mine was." Along with the fine itself, ticket inspectors supplied Ben a photo of a wordy and confusing sign located near the entrance to the lot, which only added to his frustration with the local council. He said while there were no marked bays along the fence line, signage was not clear enough to indicate to drivers they weren't allowed to park there. "I mean it's just not fair. It's a temporary gravel parking lot," he said. "They've created this mess and now they are targeting innocent commuters fighting to just leave their car somewhere to catch public transport into work." A spokesperson for Campbelltown City Council told Nine News they understood the construction of the new car park would "create some disruption". "A temporary 113-space parking lot has been opened adjacent to the existing parking lot in order to offset some of the parking loss," they said. The council was "actively monitoring and reviewing the current parking and signage arrangements as well as community feedback, to identify any further improvements that could be made and inform any additional community notification required". "While this review takes place, vehicles will only be fined where a safety risk to both other vehicles and/or pedestrians is identified," the spokesperson said. Image credits: Nine News

Legal

Dad cops furious note from "egotistical Karen" for parking in parent's bay

A Perth dad has been left hurt after he was targeted by an "egotistical Karen" for parking in a parent's bay, while his wife was inside a shopping centre changing their seven-month-old baby. "Don't park here again, you selfish prick!" the note read. His wife took to Facebook on behalf of her hurt husband to question why someone would go out of their way to criticise him for parking in a space designated for parents. "My husband was putting a baby gate in the boot while I was in the forum changing our seven-month-old baby," she defended her partner, who parked at the Mandurah Forum. "He came back into the forum looking for me [and] when we returned, someone had put this note on our windscreen. "How about next time you be sure before insulting an innocent husband and father, you hero." The woman said that the note left her husband "hurt and almost feeling guilty" and she argued that he had every right to be there as a parent. Her post attracted over 300 interactions with many agreeing with the mum, and saying that the "Karen" should've gotten their facts straight before taking action. "There is no law for who can park in parents with prams spaces they are just convenience but anyone can park there and use," one man wrote. A few others shared the same sentiment and said that "it's not illegal to park in those bays" regardless of whether or not you have a baby. Some parents even shared their own experiences and why it is important to not judge someone based on looks alone. "This has happened to me also. I had a baby and a toddler and my husband took them inside the Mandurah forum while I unloaded our car," the person began. "A couple with a baby parked next to me and the man kept yelling at me that it was only for parents with prams, even though I told him I had young kids and a pram. But he didn't believe me and yelled loudly to move my car." One mum added that she doesn't see the need for parents with prams spaces altogether. "As a mum of just a five-year-old, I personally don’t see the need for parent spaces. They are not any bigger, just more convenient. Kids need exercise and prams have wheels, not hard to walk," she wrote. "I personally think they should be seniors bays instead, they are less mobile and struggle to walk long distances. Give them the spots." Images: Facebook

Legal

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Shakira Coldwell, 21, has sparked debate online after copping a $116 parking fine for an "absurd" rule she claims she didn't even know existed. The Aussie woman took to TikTok to share her confusion, and asked if anyone else was aware of the rule. “Was I the only one that didn’t know you can get a parking fine for parking nose in, like the front of your car goes in first instead of backing into a car park?” she asked. She then asked whether the rule was only enforced in Noosa, saying that she was "pretty sure" you could park in any way as long as you stay between the lines. Coldwell then shared a photo of how she parked her car when she received the fine and said that she was “clearly” within the parking lines but hadn’t backed into her space like the car next to her. “Does that not just seem a bit absurd, a bit bizarre?” she said. She also said that she was only just made aware of the fine, as she had been travelling, which means that she may be copping even bigger fees as her payment was now overdue. “I’ve asked a couple of people about this and they literally had no idea that rule even existed. Like, I’m within the lines, it doesn’t matter how I’m parked,” she continued. According to the Brisbane City Council website, failing to park as indicated by an angle parking sign will result in a $116 fine, but Coldwell claims that she didn't see any signs. “So I am a bit confused. Is this just Noosa rule or does everyone know this because I literally did not know this was a rule. And low key $116 for a parking fine that's a bit absurd, given I was within the lines,” she said. Many commenters were quick to inform her that it was actually a common parking rule that wasn't restricted to Noosa. “As someone who lives in Noosa I can 100% guarantee there was a sign saying you had to back in,” one person wrote. “Being within the lines literally has nothing to do with it lol,” another said. A few others said that parking the wrong way in angled spots can make it “dangerous” when backing out into traffic, with one commenter claiming “everyone knows this”. However, a few others were just as baffled as the 21-year-old. “I’d be challenging that. I have never heard of it and there should definitely be signs so if you can go and check the signage,” one said. “Never heard of this before I wouldn’t pay it tell them where to go,” another wrote. According to the <a href="https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/community/local-laws/parking-regulations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Noosa Council website</a>, rear-in angle parking is enforced in certain areas to “ensure a safer parking experience for everyone in the area," and to prevent cars from crossing into oncoming traffic as they try to exit the parking bay. Images: TikTok

Legal

“This doesn’t make sense": Mum fined for parking in own driveway

A Gold Coast mum couldn't believe her eyes when she found an almost $200 fine in her mail for parking in her own driveway. “I got a lovely fine from Gold Coast City Council for parking in my own driveway,” Megan Pass told 7News. “This doesn’t make sense. “Everybody I’ve shared this with is going, ‘What the hell?’” The council claims that part of her driveway is located on council land so she was breaking the law by parking on it. The mother-of-three said that she has lived in the house for seven years and parked her car there every day and has never been fined before. The <a href="https://www.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/Planning-building/Development-applications/Development-application-types/Driveways-vehicular-crossings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">council website </a>states that there is an important difference between someone's driveway, which "ends at the property boundary", and a vehicular crossing, which is the section of the driveway between the boundary and the road. The local law prevents people from parking over council land for more than two minutes, so Ms. Pass got fined $193. People took to social media to share their thoughts on Ms Pass' situation. “What a joke - revenue raising at its best,” one user tweeted. While another said: “Yip I got one of those fines lol. Just paid it. Don’t have time spare to go court to be told… you broke the law… pay the fine." “Will the mayor mow the footpath once a week and water it? That bloke’s a goose,” a third added. Images: 7News

Legal

"Surely this is a prank": Council slammed for ridiculous parking restriction

Melbourne City Council has been slammed online for offering free parking, but only for a measly 15 minutes. The new initiative, which was shared in a video to the City of Melbourne Instagram account, details how parking fees will be waived for drivers needing to run a quick errand in the CBD, as long as they return to their vehicle within 15 minutes. Drivers can park in a “green signed” parking space such as a ‘2P Meter’, and start a 15-minute session on the Easy-Park app to claim the offer. The council said they introduced the initiative for those who want to “run an errand, support a local business and take in city vibes”. <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0lApxrt35h/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0lApxrt35h/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by City Of Melbourne (@cityofmelbourne)</a> </div> </blockquote> The initiative, however, has been rinsed online, with many people pointing out that 15 minutes is not enough time to do anything, especially in the CBD. “Surely this is a prank?” one person questioned. “As if you can take in the vibes in 15min. And based where the carpark spots are, you’d barely make it to the shop or restaurant and back in 15,” said another. “15 mins? Such overwhelming generosity,” another commented. “How can you support any business in 15 minutes time? By sprinting to a shop and run back to the car only to find a ticket on the dashboard?,” wrote another person. Despite the negative feedback, City of Melbourne said more than 90,000 people had taken up the free parking offer since it was first introduced in the central city in July. "Drivers are embracing the flexibility of our new free 15-minute parking system, which is opening up the city by giving more drivers access to free parking outside more businesses and services,” Lord Mayor Sally Capp said in a statement in November. “Early data shows our parking improvements are working exactly as intended – keeping spaces turning over outside city businesses, while making it easier to find a park.” Image credits: Instagram

Travel Trouble

"Hats off to whoever did this": Hilarious act of revenge on parking spot thief

In the cutthroat world of Sydney parking, one fed-up property owner has taken matters into their own hands – or rather, their own clingfilm. A red Fiat, blissfully parked in what turned out to be somebody's private parking spot in the Upper North Shore suburb of Wahroonga, became the canvas for a sticky masterpiece of vehicular revenge. A vigilant passerby, no doubt amused by the spectacle, snapped a photo of the clingfilm-covered car and generously shared it on a community Facebook page. The caption, dripping with sarcasm, read, "And you thought people parking boats on Mosman streets was bad. Look what happens in Wahroonga if you park in the wrong place!" The clingfilm artist didn't stop at just wrapping the car; they took it a step further by scribbling a stern message on the plastic: "Not a public park. Read, you moron. Private property." Talk about a clingy reminder that parking etiquette is serious business in Australian capital cities. While some Sydneysiders chuckled at this clingfilm caper, others questioned the creativity behind the furious act. "Why the hell would you do that to someone's car? Would a note not have achieved the same result? Seems an overreaction," pondered one rational soul, evidently unfamiliar with the concept of "sticky situations". Another concerned citizen chimed in, "Well deserved. Though it's a dreadful waste of plastic." Clearly torn between environmental consciousness and a deep-seated desire for vehicular justice, this commentator encapsulated the internal struggle faced by many Sydney residents. On the flip side, some applauded the clingfilm connoisseur for taking a bold stance against parking transgressors. "Fair enough. We have it happen to us all the time, and I'm at the point of doing this considering I can't park on the street, so I need my parking spot at my own place. Lucky they put gladwrap on the car first and not write straight on the car... hats off to whoever did this," confessed a sympathetic comrade in the battle for parking supremacy. Clearly, as this red Fiat sits wrapped up like a vehicular burrito, Sydney residents have found themselves divided over the ethics of clingfilm activism. Is it a genius way to teach parking manners, or just a sticky situation waiting to be unwrapped? Only time will tell if clingfilm justice becomes the hottest trend in Sydney's ongoing parking wars. Images: Facebook

Legal

"Suck it up": Tourist's parking mistake divides Aussies

A puzzled tourist's question about a $116 parking fine he received at a beach in Noosa, Queensland has divided Aussies, with many telling him to cough up the cash. The motorist shared a photo of his white SUV sitting between two other parked cars under a tree, but what he missed was the faint yellow line behind the nature strip. Confused, he took to a local Facebook group to ask why he was slapped with a fine for “stopping in a no stopping zone” in late October as he believed that he “parked off the road in one of the car parks they offer for free”. “Can I still be charged if I’m parked not impeding traffic or even on the road?” the driver asked. “Is there any way I can go back to them and contest this? I don’t remember seeing any signs that said no stopping near the island.” Residents of the popular tourist town were quick to criticise the driver. “Really. There are yellow lines and parked in a garden bed. It’s not a car park,” one wrote. “You’re lucky you only got non stopping zone ticket. Just because you park in car park doesn’t mean you can park anywhere in there," another added. “You are in a garden … suck it up,” a third commented. While many pointed out that where he had parked “is not a car space," one commenter explained that “yellow line means no parking all over Australia” and the council is “well within their rights”. The driver didn't take the criticism to heart, and quipped :“So due to the faint yellow line that means you can’t park there? Gotta love Noosa, good to know that the $116 will go towards repainting the line — not. "So is there anything I can do or just pay it?” While many criticised his poor judgement, a few others sympathised with the tourist, saying that they also copped a fine in the same spot. “I've gotten the same fine for parking a scooter there too. Not much you can do. There are signs and a yellow line…” one wrote. “It’s a s**t rule but they’ve been getting people like this for years,” another added. A third added that he could contest the fine “as the yellow line is not very well maintained”. While a few others commented that in general there aren't enough car parks to accommodate the number of visitors. "It’s not even full school holidays for all schools yet and yesterday was shocking to find a car park.” According to the local council, it is illegal for a driver to park their car on a nature strip, footpath or in a parkland anywhere in the shire. Images: Facebook

Legal

"What am I missing?" Driver confused over hefty parking fine

A woman has been left shocked over a $300 parking fine, for an offence she had no idea she was committing. The confused motorist was puzzled when she received a $305 fine in the mail, and decided to take to Facebook to ask her community if they could "help [her] understand the fine". The woman, from Sydney's inner west, posted photos of her parking job to a local Facebook page, which show her blue hatchback parked curbside outside a house, with no apparent signal nearby. "I got fined $305 and lost some demerits points. They said I parked parallel close to the dividing line/strip," she explained. "I don't see anything wrong with the pics. What am I missing?" she questioned alongside photos of offence. According to parking rules in New South Wales, drivers "must not park within 3m of any double dividing lines" and those caught doing so can be fined. In the photos, the double lines appear close to the woman's car on a seemingly narrow road. One person explained the rule on in the comments of her Facebook post, writing, "It's possibly because there is not enough room for cars to pass your car without partly crossing their car across the double middle lines — it's illegal for them to do that." So you can't park in a place where there isn't enough space between the double middle lines and your car for other cars to pass." The parking rule surprised many who admitted they "had no idea" the rule existed, with some concluding you "see it all the time". "Sorry you got those fines. Wow. You learn something new every day," said one driver. "I had no idea this was a road rule until now! I'm sorry you copped such a huge fine," said another, to which the driver concluded it an "expensive lesson learnt". Image credits: Facebook

Legal

No, the Voice to Parliament would not force people to give up their private land

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-galloway-9907">Kate Galloway</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> In the polarised debate about the Voice to Parliament referendum, some proponents of the “no” vote have <a href="https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/voice-legislation-does-not-authorise-a-land-grab/">claimed</a> the creation of the new advisory body would lead to the conversion of private land titles in Australia to native title. The implication is that people will be forced to give up their land. This has sown fear among some Australians. Last week, a false letter purporting to be from a member of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria was distributed to homes in regional Victoria, saying the body was moving into the “next phase of reacquiring land”. The minister for Indigenous Australians, Linda Burney, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/fake-letter-scaremongering-about-indigenous-land-claims-sparks-outrage-20230912-p5e43n.html">called</a> it a “another example of the dirty tricks campaign” being waged to sow doubt over the Voice referendum. Similar concerns were raised following the High Court decision in the <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/mabo-case">Mabo case</a> in 1992 and passage of the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00178">Native Title Act</a> a year later. Like the fear-mongering over the Mabo decision, the current alarm over the potential loss of private lands with a Voice to Parliament is unwarranted because this claim is manifestly incorrect. There are two foundational legal reasons why: <ul> <li> because of the words of the proposed constitutional amendment itself </li> <li> and because of the way that native title works. </li> </ul> <h2>Would the proposed Voice have powers related to land?</h2> The proposed constitutional amendment that would create the Voice is very simple. It seeks to insert one new section into the Constitution, which reads: <blockquote> In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: <ol> <li> there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; </li> <li> the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; </li> <li> the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. </li> </ol> </blockquote> The words clearly provide for only one activity to be undertaken by the Voice. The new body “may make representations” on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is no express or hidden power to either take people’s land or give land to First Nations people. The Voice is a committee that may provide advice to parliament and government on issues relating to First Nations people. That is all. And this advice is not binding. The parliament of the day is free to ignore it, if it wishes to. The new provision also gives one sole power to the parliament – it would have the capacity to set up the Voice. It is not possible to understand this provision as creating a special power to take people’s land, or to “convert” land to native title. Importantly, the power to establish the Voice would not be given to the government – it would belong to parliament. In exercising this power, normal parliamentary processes will apply and the parliament will be accountable to the public. There are no other changes to the Constitution proposed in this referendum. <h2>How native title works</h2> In the famous Mabo case, the High Court found that the land title of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, held under their traditional law and custom, survived the introduction of British sovereignty over Australia. Mabo confirmed native title can only be claimed over land where there is no interest in conflict with the exercise of this right. Native title will always give way to grants of exclusive land use. Following this decision, the law now states that every grant of freehold land (“private” land) extinguishes native title. Further, in the later case of <a href="https://jade.io/article/68082">Fejo v Northern Territory</a>, the High Court confirmed that once native title has been extinguished, it cannot be revived. Consequently, even if the constitutional change creating the Voice did (somehow) recognise native title, it is not possible to “convert” freehold land to native title. On private land, native title no longer exists under Australian law. To put these claims of “land conversion” in context, it is helpful to recall the public response to the Mabo decision. Following the High Court judgement in Mabo, the mining industry ran a national campaign asserting that native title would threaten people’s back yards. The managing director of Western Mining, Hugh Morgan, <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=(Id:library/prspub/raf10);rec=0">said</a> the High Court’s decision "put at risk the whole legal framework of property rights throughout the whole community." This campaign led to significant public fear about the effects of native title. These claims about native title after Mabo were incorrect. Private landholdings have not been threatened. Indeed, on the ten-year anniversary of the Mabo decision, former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett even <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/i-was-wrong-on-mabo-kennett-20020601-gdu9dt.html">admitted that his initial fears had been unfounded</a>. In reading or listening to claims about the effect of the Voice, it is prudent to question the source of information. If you have questions, seek a reliable source to read the words of the proposed amendment and understand the objective of the constitutional change. If you hear of a claim that seems extreme, it may well be aimed at diverting the public’s attention from the real issues.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212784/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kate-galloway-9907">Kate Galloway</a>, Associate Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-to-parliament-would-not-force-people-to-give-up-their-private-land-212784">original article</a>.

Legal

Who really benefits from private health insurance rebates? Not people who need cover the most

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/judith-liu-1467052">Judith Liu</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oklahoma-1896">University of Oklahoma</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> The Australian government spends <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/delivering-australias-lowest-private-health-insurance-premium-change-in-21-years">A$6.7 billion a year</a> on private health insurance rebates. These <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/">rebates</a> are the government’s contribution towards the costs of individuals’ premiums. But our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4751">analysis</a> shows higher rebates for people aged 65 and older are not doing much to encourage them to sign up for private hospital cover, the very group who may benefit the most from it. This and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2017.1299094">other research</a> point to these rebates largely going to people on higher incomes, ones who’d be more likely to buy private health insurance anyway. <h2>Remind me, what are these rebates?</h2> In <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/0aaf3311ebcd3646ca2570ec000c46e4!OpenDocument#:%7E:text=The%20Federal%20Government%2030%25%20Rebate,the%20means%2Dtested%20PHIIS%20rebate.">1999</a>, the Australian government introduced the private health insurance rebate. Initially, the rebate meant the government paid 30% of the cost of private health insurance for everyone, regardless of income or age. Then in 2005, the Howard government increased the rebate rate to 35% for those aged 65-69 and to 40% for those aged 70 and older, regardless of how much they earned. Over time, the rebate rates have decreased slightly and now depend on both income and age. However, the higher discount for older people has always remained. We wanted to understand whether the higher rebates for older people actually encourage them to buy private health insurance. So we looked at data from more than 300,000 people who filed tax returns over more than a decade (2001-2012). We then compared the trends in insurance coverage of people younger than 65 and older than 65, before and after the 2005 rebate policy change. <h2>What we found</h2> We found higher rebates led to a modest and short-term increase in private health insurance take-up. We estimated that lowering premium prices by 10% through higher rebates would only result in 1-2% more people aged 65 and older buying private health insurance in the next two years. This means higher rebates for older people are a very expensive way to get them to insure. People aged 65-74 with income in the bottom 25% of earners were the most likely to buy insurance in response to higher rebates that reduced premium prices. That’s an income under $21,848 in today’s money (income increased to 2023 dollar amount, in line with the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/consumer-price-index">consumer price index</a>). <h2>What do we propose?</h2> Our findings suggest a more targeted subsidy program would be a more effective way to increase private health insurance. To achieve this, we recommend lowering income thresholds for rebates to target people of all ages on genuinely low incomes. Currently, people earning as much as $144,000 (singles) or $288,000 (families) can receive rebates. Other evidence to back our proposal comes from <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">research</a> released earlier this year. This suggests higher income earners are likely to buy private insurance regardless of rebates. A recent <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies">consultation report</a> commissioned by the federal health department reviewed a range of health insurance incentives. The <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/supporting_documents/Finity%20Consulting%20MLS%20and%20PHI%20Rebate%20Final%20Report.pdf">report</a> recommends removing rebates for those with income higher than $108,000 for singles and $216,000 for families (we recommend removing them at $93,000 for singles and $186,000 for families). The report also recommends increasing rebates for those older than 65 (we believe income, rather than age, is a better marker of someone’s means). <h2>Are rebates good value for money?</h2> We also need to look at whether rebates provide value for money more broadly, and across all ages. <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/926-Saving-Health-2.pdf">Existing evidence</a> shows a 10% decrease in premiums due to rebates only leads to a 3.5-5% increase in private health insurance take-up among all Australians. We show this is only <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4751">1-2%</a> for people over 65. So rebates are likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.11.007">cost taxpayers more</a> than they generate in savings, and are largely windfalls to those who would privately insure anyway, often those who are financially better off. <h2>What happens if we scrapped the rebates?</h2> It is uncertain how many people would drop private cover if the rebate was removed. But based on research from when the rebate was introduced, the rebate might account for a maximum <a href="https://escholarship.org/content/qt6j47s8kq/qt6j47s8kq_noSplash_be059196ed2d70b94486039f64452494.pdf">10-15 percentage points</a> of the overall take-up rate. Other research suggests it might be much less than this, closer to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762961300163X?casa_token=C-SdG98Jc2UAAAAA:KJLHBZ2BJhq9wRQQKUbEWPiqoeza1DEi3mZ9Y6O2GereVX1L1x0cJumVgrqBeMGa1ygDjFrPG7T5">2 percentage points</a>. In other words, the rebate only appears to influence a small percentage of people to buy private health insurance. So scrapping it would likely have a similarly small effect. Then there’s the impact of scrapping the rebate, people dropping their cover and putting more pressure on the public system. Earlier this year, we found private health insurance had <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-private-health-insurance-cut-public-hospital-waiting-lists-we-found-it-barely-makes-a-dent-211680">minimal impact</a> on reducing waiting times for surgery in Victorian public hospitals. So scrapping the rebate might have minimal impact on waiting lists. Taken together, the billions of dollars a year the government spends to subsidise private health insurance via rebates might be better directed to public hospitals and other high-value care, including primary care and preventive care.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212611/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/judith-liu-1467052">Judith Liu</a>, Assistant Professor of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oklahoma-1896">University of Oklahoma</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, Chancellor's Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-really-benefits-from-private-health-insurance-rebates-not-people-who-need-cover-the-most-212611">original article</a>.

Legal

"Ignore it": The one parking ticket Aussies can chuck in the bin

Western Australian driver, Connor Wright, has gone viral after sharing his advice on how to handle penalty notices issued by private parking companies. The TikTok, which now has over 1.5 million views, started off with Wright recalling the moment he walked back to his car to find a ticket issued by Parking Enforcement Services (PES), a division of Wilson Parking. Wright then proceeds to rip up the ticket and told others to "make sure to read the fine print on these bad boys". "If you read at the back, it says important information: 'This is not a parking fine'," he said. "Useless, throw it in the bin, don't pay that sh*t." Many have commented how they "wish they knew this earlier". The ticket itself is a 'breach notice' which starts at a $65 penalty from Wilson and is only issued when a person drives into private car park, for example in a shopping centre, and break the terms and conditions issued by the private entity. "What they try and do is recover the debt for the loss incurred, effectively like a breach of contract, but they're not fines — only a statutory body has the power to issue a fine." Sydney Criminal Lawyers James Clements told Yahoo News Australia. Clements also called the penalty a "bullying tactic" to "effectively try scaring people into paying them," but it is difficult to enforce it due to government "crackdowns." However parking fines from bodies like councils, some universities and hospitals should be paid. Clements advises that when you receive the breach notice you should "ignore it" or "write back and say, 'I dispute this and do not intend to pay'." "What you don't want to do is write to them and say that you disclose you were the driver." Drivers are also encouraged to read signs and the terms and conditions when entering a private car park. Images: TikTok

Legal

Does private health insurance cut public hospital waiting lists? We found it barely makes a dent

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jongsay-yong-10803">Jongsay Yong</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ou-yang-937801">Ou Yang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> The more people take up private health insurance, the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/community_affairs/completed_inquiries/1999-02/pubhosp/report/c05">less pressure</a> on the public hospital system, including <a href="https://www.privatehealthcareaustralia.org.au/australians-sign-up-to-private-health-insurance-in-record-numbers-to-avoid-hospital-waiting-lists/#:%7E:text=%22Private%20health%20insurance%20is%20the,and%20keep%20pressure%20off%20premiums.">shorter waiting lists</a> for surgery. That’s one of the key messages we’ve been hearing from government and the private health insurance industry in recent years. Governments <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/health_insurance/surcharges_incentives/index.htm">encourage us</a> to buy private hospital cover. They tempt us with carrots – for instance, with subsidised <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/">premiums</a>. With higher-income earners, the government uses sticks – buy private cover or pay the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/">Medicare Levy Surcharge</a>. These are just some of the <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/delivering-australias-lowest-private-health-insurance-premium-change-in-21-years#:%7E:text=Home-,Delivering%20Australia's%20lowest%20private%20health%20insurance%20premium%20change%20in%2021,be%202.70%20percent%20in%202022">billion-dollar strategies</a> aimed to shift more of us who can afford it into the private system. But what if private health insurance doesn’t have any meaningful impact on public hospital waiting lists after all? That’s what we found in our <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4721936">recent research</a>. Our analysis suggests if an extra 65,000 people buy private health insurance, public hospital waiting lists barely shift from the average 69 days. Waiting lists are an average just eight hours shorter. In other words, we’ve used hospital admission and waiting-list data to show private health insurance doesn’t make much difference. <h2>What we did</h2> Our <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4721936">work</a> looked at data from 2014-2018 on hospital admissions and waiting lists for elective surgery in Victoria. The data covered all Victorians who were admitted as an inpatient in all hospitals in the state (both public and private) and those registered on the waiting list for elective surgeries in the state’s public hospitals. That included waiting times for surgeries where people are admitted to public hospitals (as an inpatient). We didn’t include people waiting to see specialist doctors as an outpatient. The data was linked at the patient level, meaning we could track what happened to individuals on the waiting list. We then examined the impact of more people buying private health insurance on waiting times for surgeries in the state’s public hospitals. We did this by looking at the uptake of private health insurance in different areas of Victoria, according to socioeconomic status. After adjusting for patient characteristics that may affect waiting times, these differences in insurance uptake allowed us to identify how this changed waiting times. <h2>What we found</h2> In our sample, on average <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/4721936/wp2023n09.pdf">44% of people</a> in Victoria had private health insurance. This is close to the national average of <a href="https://www.apra.gov.au/private-health-insurance-annual-coverage-survey">45%</a>. We found that increasing the average private health insurance take-up from 44% to 45% in Victoria would reduce waiting times in public hospitals by an average 0.34 days (or about eight hours). This increase of one percentage point is equivalent to 65,000 more people in Victoria (based on <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3101.0Main+Features1Jun%202018?OpenDocument">2018 population data</a>) taking up (and using) private health insurance. The effects vary slightly by surgical specialty. For instance, private health insurance made a bigger reduction to waiting times for knee replacements, than for cancer surgery, compared to the average. But again, the difference only came down to a few hours. Someone’s age also made a slight difference, but again by only a few hours compared to the average wait. Given the common situation facing public and private hospitals across all states and territories, and similar private health insurance take-up in many states, our findings are likely to apply outside Victoria. <h2>Why doesn’t it reduce waiting lists?</h2> While our research did not address this directly, there may be several reasons why private health insurance does not free up resources in the public system to reduce waiting lists: <ul> <li> people might buy health insurance and not use it, preferring to have free treatment in the public system rather than risk out-of-pocket costs in the private system </li> <li> specialists may not be willing to spend more time in the public system, instead <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1753-6405.12488">favouring working</a> in private hospitals </li> <li> there’s a growing need for public hospital services that may not be available in the private system, such as complex neurosurgery and some forms of cancer treatment. </li> </ul> <h2>Why is this important?</h2> Government <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/health_insurance/surcharges_incentives/index.htm">policies</a> designed to get more of us to buy private health insurance involve a significant sum of public spending. Each year, the Australian government spends about <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-greg-hunt-mp/media/delivering-australias-lowest-private-health-insurance-premium-change-in-21-years#:%7E:text=Home-,Delivering%20Australia's%20lowest%20private%20health%20insurance%20premium%20change%20in%2021,be%202.70%20percent%20in%202022">$A6.7 billion</a> in private health insurance rebates to reduce premiums. In the 2020-21 financial year, Medicare combined with state and territory government expenditure provided almost <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/hospitals/australias-hospitals-at-a-glance/contents/spending-on-hospitals">$6.1 billion</a> to fund services provided in private hospitals. There might be an argument for this public spending if the end result was to substantially take pressure off public hospitals and thereby reduce waiting times for treatment in public hospitals. But the considerable effort it takes to encourage more people to sign up for private health insurance, coupled with the small effect on waiting lists we’ve shown, means this strategy is neither practical nor effective. Given the substantial costs of subsidising private health insurance and private hospitals, public money might be better directed to public hospitals and primary care. In addition, people buying private health insurance can skip the waiting times for elective surgery to receive speedier care. These people are often <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/4682822/wp2023n08.pdf">financially well off</a>, implying unequal access to health care. <h2>What’s next?</h2> The Australian government is currently <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">reviewing</a> private health insurance. So now is a good time for reforms to optimise the overall efficiency of the health-care system (both public and private) and improve population health while saving taxpayer money. We also need policies to ensure equitable access to care as a priority. When it comes to reducing hospital waiting lists, we’ve shown we cannot rely on increased rates of private health insurance coverage to do the heavy lifting.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211680/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jongsay-yong-10803">Jongsay Yong</a>, Associate Professor of Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ou-yang-937801">Ou Yang</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-private-health-insurance-cut-public-hospital-waiting-lists-we-found-it-barely-makes-a-dent-211680">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Private health insurance is <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">under review</a>, with proposals to overhaul everything from rebates to tax penalty rules. One <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/supporting_documents/Finity%20Consulting%20MLS%20and%20PHI%20Rebate%20Final%20Report.pdf">proposal</a> is for higher-income earners who don’t have private health insurance to pay a larger <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/">Medicare Levy Surcharge</a> – an increase from 1.25% or 1.5%, to 2%. And if they want to avoid that surcharge, they’d need to take out higher-level hospital cover than currently required. Encouraging more people to take up private health insurance like this might seem a good way to take pressure off the public hospital system. But <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a> shows these proposals may not achieve this. These may also be especially punitive for people with little to gain from buying private health insurance, such as younger people and those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals. <h2>What is the Medicare Levy Surcharge?</h2> The Medicare Levy Surcharge was <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2013/May/A_short_history_of_increases_to_the_Medicare_levy#:%7E:text=From%20July%201997%2C%20a%20surcharge,ancillary%20insurance%20cover%20was%20introduced">introduced in 1997</a> to encourage high-income earners to buy health insurance. People earning above the relevant thresholds need to buy “complying” health insurance, or pay the levy. This surcharge is in addition to the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy/">Medicare levy</a>, which applies to most taxpayers. The surcharge varies depending on your income bracket, and the rate is <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Medicare-levy-surcharge/Medicare-levy-surcharge-income,-thresholds-and-rates/">different</a> for families. For instance, to avoid paying the surcharge currently, a single person living in Victoria earning A$108,001 can buy basic hospital cover. The lowest annual premium for someone under 65 is <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">about $1,100</a>, after rebates. That varies slightly between states and territories. Not buying private health insurance and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would cost even more, at $1,350 (1.25% of $108,001). <h2>What is being proposed?</h2> The <a href="https://consultations.health.gov.au/medical-benefits-division/consultation-on-phi-studies/">report</a>, by Finity Consulting and commissioned by the federal health department, reviews a range of health insurance incentives. It recommends increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge to 2% for those with an income above $108,001 for singles, and $216,001 for families. The definition of a “complying” private health insurance policy would also change. Rather than having basic hospital cover as is required now, someone would need to buy <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/resources/publications/private-health-insurance-reforms-gold-silver-bronze-basic-product-tiers-campaign-fact-sheet?language=en">silver or gold</a> cover to avoid the surcharge. Under the proposed changes, people who pay the 2% surcharge would also no longer receive any rebate, which currently reduces premiums by <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Income-thresholds-and-rates-for-the-private-health-insurance-rebate/#Rebaterates1">about 8%</a> for people earning $108,001-$144,000. So, for a single person under 65, earning $108,001 and living in Victoria, the <a href="https://www.privatehealth.gov.au/dynamic/Search/">annual cost of buying</a> complying hospital cover would be at least $1,904 (without the rebate). Again, that varies slightly between states and territories. But the cost of not insuring and paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge instead would go up to $2,160 (2% of $108,001). <h2>Is this a good idea?</h2> However, <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/working-papers/search/result?paper=4682822">our research</a>, out earlier this year, suggests increasing the Medicare Levy Surcharge will not meaningfully increase take-up of private health insurance. We’ve shown that people do not respond as strongly to the surcharge as theory would predict. For example, when the surcharge kicks in, we found the probability of insuring only increases modestly from about 70% to 73% for singles, and about 90% to 91% for families. It is generally cheaper to buy private health insurance than to pay the surcharge. However, we found about 15% of single people with an income of $108,001 or above don’t insure despite it being cheaper than paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We don’t know precisely why. Maybe people are not sure of the financial benefit due to changes in their income, or if they are, cannot be bothered, or do not have time, to explore their options. Maybe, as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/AusFinance/comments/x2909w/does_anyone_else_willingly_pay_the_medicare/">anecdotal reports suggest</a>, rather than buying private health insurance, some people would rather support the public system by paying the Medicare Levy Surcharge. The point is, people who are not buying private health insurance appear to be highly resistant to financial incentives. So stronger penalties might have little effect. Instead, we propose the Medicare Levy Surcharge be better targeted to true high-income earners. We can do that by increasing income thresholds for the surcharge to kick in, which are then indexed annually to reflect changes in earnings. <h2>How about needing more expensive cover?</h2> Requiring people to choose silver level cover or above would address criticisms about people buying “<a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-rid-of-junk-health-insurance-policies-is-just-tinkering-at-the-margins-of-a-much-bigger-issue-82749">junk</a>” private health insurance they never intend to use. However, people may be buying this type of product because private health insurance has little value to them. Requiring them to spend even more on a product they don’t want is a roundabout way of taking pressure off the public system. So we propose keeping the current level of hospital cover required to avoid the surcharge, rather than increasing it. <h2>Who loses?</h2> Taken together, the cost of these proposed changes would disproportionately fall on people with little to gain from private health insurance. These include younger people, those living in regional areas who do not have access to private hospitals, or those who prefer to support the public system directly. These groups are the least likely to use private insurance so have the least to gain from upgrading their cover. <h2>Where to next?</h2> The report also recommends keeping <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/">health insurance rebates</a> (a government contribution to your premiums), the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Medicare-and-private-health-insurance/Private-health-insurance-rebate/Lifetime-health-cover/">Lifetime Health Cover</a> loading (to encourage people to take out hospital cover while younger), as well as the Medicare Levy Surcharge. We also support keeping these three in the short to medium term. But we recommend gradually reducing public support for private health insurance. We believe the ultimate goal of reforming private health insurance is to optimise the overall efficiency of the health-care system (both public and private systems) and improve population health while saving taxpayers’ money. The goal should not be merely increasing the take-up of private health insurance, which is the focus of the current report. So, as well as our recommendation to better target the Medicare Levy Surcharge, we need to: <ul> <li> lower income thresholds for <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-private-health-insurance-rebate-has-cost-taxpayers-100-billion-and-only-benefits-some-should-we-scrap-it-181264">insurance rebates</a>, especially targeting those on genuinely low incomes. This means lower premiums only for the people who can least afford private health care </li> <li> remove rebates <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-premiums-should-be-based-on-age-and-health-status-122545">based on age</a> as higher rebates for older people <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2017.1299094?journalCode=rael20">do not</a> encourage more to insure. Rebates should be tied to just income, which is a better indicator of financial means.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210981/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yuting-zhang-1144393">Yuting Zhang</a>, Professor of Health Economics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kettlewell-903866">Nathan Kettlewell</a>, Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Economics Discipline Group, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/private-health-insurance-is-set-for-a-shake-up-but-asking-people-to-pay-more-for-policies-they-dont-want-isnt-the-answer-210981">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Sandra Bullock mourns the passing of her longtime partner after private illness

Hollywood star Sandra Bullock's beloved partner, Bryan Randall, has passed away at the age of 57, with the heart-wrenching news confirmed by his grieving family in a statement shared on Monday. “It is with great sadness that we share that on Aug. 5, Bryan Randall passed away peacefully after a three-year battle with ALS,” the statement read. “Bryan chose early to keep his journey with ALS private and those of us who cared for him did our best to honour his request. We are immensely grateful to the tireless doctors who navigated the landscape of this illness with us and to the astounding nurses who became our roommates, often sacrificing their own families to be with ours. At this time we ask for privacy to grieve and to come to terms with the impossibility of saying goodbye to Bryan.” The statement was signed with a poignant, "His Loving Family". Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, is a merciless neurological affliction that ravages motor neurons that command delicate voluntary muscle movement. Regrettably, there is currently no remedy for the condition. Bullock, aged 59, crossed paths with model-turned-photographer Randall when he was summoned to capture her son Louis’ birthday celebration in the early days of 2015. Their connection was immediate and profound. The mother-of-two, and an actress who has fiercely guarded her privacy over the years, chose to unveil fragments of her relationship's intimacy during a candid appearance on Red Table Talk in 2021. “I found the love of my life. We share two beautiful children — three children, [Randall’s] older daughter. It’s the best thing ever,” Bullock said at the time. “I don’t wanna say do it like I do it, but I don’t need a paper to be a devoted partner and devoted mother … I don’t need to be told to be ever present in the hardest of times. I don’t need to be told to weather a storm with a good man.” She added that Randall was also a superb “example” to her two children: “He’s the example that I would want my children to have... I have a partner who’s very Christian and there are two different ways of looking at things. I don’t always agree with him, and he doesn’t always agree with me. But he is an example even when I don’t agree with him... I’m stubborn but sometimes I need to sit back and listen and go, ‘You’re saying it differently but we mean exactly the same thing.’ “It’s hard to co-parent because I just want to do it myself.” "He was so happy, but he was scared. I'm a bulldozer. My life was already on the track, and here's this beautiful human being who doesn't want anything to do with my life but the right human being to be there." Images: Getty

Caring

Police lie in wait for Kyle Sandilands after on-air boasts

Well, well, well, it seems like Kyle Sandilands has become quite the sensation among the law enforcement agencies. This Tuesday morning was no ordinary day for the radio star, as he drove into KIIS FM's studios only to find himself caught in a wild ambush by the cops. Yes, you read that right! In a video that was later shared on The Kyle and Jackie O Show's Instagram account, viewers were shown several police officers patiently waiting for Sandilands to arrive at the ungodly hour of 5:30 am. As Kyle stepped out of his luxurious $250,000 Cadillac Escalade Platinum 4WD, the officers approached him, ready to take action. But wait – it turns out this encounter wasn't your typical traffic stop. In fact, it was all about Kyle's on-air shenanigans! The station's employees spilled the beans, revealing that the police had a little chat with them while they eagerly waited for Kyle's arrival. Turns out, the boys in blue just wanted to have a friendly discussion with the father-of-one about his knack for making outrageous comments on the radio. "The highway patrol dude[s], they've come out and they've said, 'Listen, we've heard you on the air saying you think the coppers are after you," said Kyle. "And they've come out to tell me they're not after me." Kyle, being the smooth talker that he is, managed to talk himself out of any real trouble, with the audio recording from the station capturing his finesse in action. But here's the kicker: he didn't entirely believe their explanation. In fact, he expressed concern about his dwindling points on his driver's license, mentioning that he only had four left. However, the encounter did not end in tears or sirens blaring. In a surprising turn of events, Kyle decided to call one officer's fiancée, who happened to be a fan of the show, just to tell her that she had landed herself "a good one" in her law enforcement beau. Smooth move, Kyle, smooth move! Now, let's rewind to 2021 when Sandilands confessed to accumulating a whopping $16,000 worth of fines in just one year. He practically treats parking fines like they're going out of style. During a lively conversation with his manager and pal, Bruno Bouchet, on The Kyle and Jackie O Show, Kyle spilled the beans on his parking escapades. Apparently, he has witnessed firsthand the magical art of getting away with parking violations. According to Bruno, there are a few parking rangers who are loyal fans of the show and would rather not deal with the hassle of booking Kyle. But Kyle takes his parking rebellion to the next level. He boldly declared, "I never buy a ticket, I say f**k the local council, I'm not paying you $4, screw yourself!" The numbers don't lie, and neither does Jackie O's shocked expression. Let's break down the fines, shall we? 18 fines for "parking continuously longer than indicated" racked up a bill of $2,088. Kyle's blatant disregard for stop signs earned him 25 violations, totalling $5,675. And if that wasn't enough, stopping in a loading zone like it's his personal VIP parking spot resulted in a staggering 42 charges, adding up to $8,148. The grand total for the year? A jaw-dropping $15,911! Naturally, Jackie couldn't hide her disbelief and told Kyle that it was a "waste of money." But Kyle had an explanation (or maybe an excuse?) up his sleeve. He admitted that sometimes he mistakes the ticket fines for Domino's flyers on his car window. Ah, the struggles of a wealthy and famous man! In the grand scheme of things, $16,000 is pocket change for Kyle, who reportedly rakes in a mind-boggling $5 million per year for hosting The Kyle and Jackie O Show. Well, there you have it, folks, a true rebel fighting against the system, one parking ticket at a time. Images: KIIS FM

Legal

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

Experience a unique glimpse into the private life of Princess Diana

Politicians slam Albanese's "hypocritical" private jet use

"Unfair" parking fines could soon be a thing of the past

"Other cities will follow": Big trouble ahead for SUV owners

"It's just not fair": Driver slams council for misleading parking fine

Dad cops furious note from "egotistical Karen" for parking in parent's bay

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

“This doesn’t make sense": Mum fined for parking in own driveway

"Surely this is a prank": Council slammed for ridiculous parking restriction

"Hats off to whoever did this": Hilarious act of revenge on parking spot thief

"Suck it up": Tourist's parking mistake divides Aussies

"What am I missing?" Driver confused over hefty parking fine

No, the Voice to Parliament would not force people to give up their private land

Who really benefits from private health insurance rebates? Not people who need cover the most

"Ignore it": The one parking ticket Aussies can chuck in the bin

Does private health insurance cut public hospital waiting lists? We found it barely makes a dent

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

Sandra Bullock mourns the passing of her longtime partner after private illness

Police lie in wait for Kyle Sandilands after on-air boasts

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Woman fined after paid car park gets set up around her parked vehicle

Experience a unique glimpse into the private life of Princess Diana

Politicians slam Albanese's "hypocritical" private jet use

"Unfair" parking fines could soon be a thing of the past

"Other cities will follow": Big trouble ahead for SUV owners

"It's just not fair": Driver slams council for misleading parking fine

Dad cops furious note from "egotistical Karen" for parking in parent's bay

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

“This doesn’t make sense": Mum fined for parking in own driveway

"Surely this is a prank": Council slammed for ridiculous parking restriction

"Hats off to whoever did this": Hilarious act of revenge on parking spot thief

"Suck it up": Tourist's parking mistake divides Aussies

"What am I missing?" Driver confused over hefty parking fine

No, the Voice to Parliament would not force people to give up their private land

Who really benefits from private health insurance rebates? Not people who need cover the most

"Ignore it": The one parking ticket Aussies can chuck in the bin

Does private health insurance cut public hospital waiting lists? We found it barely makes a dent

Private health insurance is set for a shake-up. But asking people to pay more for policies they don’t want isn’t the answer

Sandra Bullock mourns the passing of her longtime partner after private illness

Police lie in wait for Kyle Sandilands after on-air boasts

Our Partners

Join Over60