Free Public Transport and Social Justice in Australia

12 Comments

1. The thing about charging for a service is the cost of the actual process. 10s to 100s of millions of $dollars$ for software and hardware to take a payment plus banking fees to process the payments and/or the expenses of accepting cash. Plus the costs of making it mobile as well as the costs of hosting the data in a useable form for research and marketing.
   The costs become a sizeable chunk of the fare.
   Then there is the enforcement costs. PSOs who act more like SS Troops than customer service officers. Kids dragged through the mill because they either tried to dodge a small fare or could not afford it, or the system was too slow and they wanted to travel together with their friends.
   How about that young woman trying to get home from an outing at night, worrying about her transport card or whether she has the money to pay for that fare. Trying to decide whether to walk, use public transport or if she can afford an Uber. Risking her safety due to finances or a lost card or possibly be being too intoxicated to drive.

   Meanwhile there are so many areas with poor or no public transport.
   Where I live one of the bus services is hourly in peak and 2-hourly off peak. It then has to link with another service in town that is every 20 minutes in peak and hourly off peak. Then that service takes you to the train station. If a connection is missed you can be delayed for hours.

   Nowhere in the world does public transport make a profit. It is always subsidised by councils, governments and, ultimately, taxpayers. Some models provide different levels of service and accountability, some charge more or less or nothing for fares, some are cleaner and more reliable than others, but none make money.

   Let us reassign the PSOs to customer service, assisting passengers in general and tourists or the disabled or those unfamiliar with the system in particular. They can police behaviour, ensuring that people are safe on the the train, tram or bus. Making sure they know which service to use and which stop to get off. With no money to worry about things will be better.
   Oops! I think I just described a tram conductor or station attendant!
   [Disclaimer: In the interests of full disclosure my first job was in public transport for 15 years (1974 to 1989) and I was a tram conductor and driver and a bus driver before moving into the revenue side of the transport system and studying transport management.]

   By making transport free the actual cost of running the transport is reduced and we can concentrate on better service instead.

2. So true Denis, however, there are a few obstacles, not all transport is “Public” so some coverage for private owned transport would be required.
   But yes, such a scheme would be beneficial to society, it would reduce air pollution and congestion in towns and cities. It would reduce our dependence on off shore oil refineries, while keeping the Australian dollar in Australia.
   By taking many vehicles off the road it would reduce accidents and improve the flow of goods and materials.
   Outer rural areas would be a problem, but increased rail and bus services and vouchers for taxi use could be introduced.
   Nothing is for “free”, but a jump on, jump off transport system, would have an ongoing beneficial impact on society.

3. You’ve made some excellent points, Lee, particularly about the waste and harm caused by fare collection systems and enforcement. The billions spent on ticketing, compliance, and banking fees could indeed be redirected to service improvements and safety.

   The only thing I’d clarify is the idea that taxpayers would subsidise a free service. In reality, Australia issues its own sovereign currency, meaning the federal government isn’t limited by tax revenue when funding essential public goods. Taxes don’t “pay for” services like transport; they help manage inflation and resource use.

   Free public transport would be publicly funded, not taxpayer-funded, just as we fund roads, schools, and hospitals, investments made for the public good. With dollar sovereignty, Australia can afford to prioritise mobility, equality, and climate-friendly infrastructure without burdening citizens.

4. You make some thoughtful points, Jonangel, especially about reducing congestion, accidents, and our dependence on imported fuel.

   You’re right that not all transport is currently public, but I’d argue it should be. Essential mobility, like healthcare or education, works best when it’s universally available, reliable, and not driven by profit. Public ownership ensures the focus stays on community benefit rather than corporate return.

   Private operators could still have a role, but under public coordination where routes, fares, and standards are guided by social purpose, not shareholder demands. Australia’s dollar sovereignty gives us the freedom to invest in a fully public, free transport system, one designed around access, sustainability, and fairness rather than profit margins.

5. Great article Denis. Yes, yes, yes.

   Lee, my dad worked for the railways, somewhere between 45 and 50 years ago he told me train travel (it may even have been public transport entirely) should be made free and ticketing staff could be reassigned. I’ve always argued in favour, but felt my argument was weak on the financial side, thanks ever so much for the insights.

6. Thanks, Gonggongche. Your dad was well ahead of his time, he understood what many still overlook today: the cost of ticketing and enforcement outweighs the benefits. With Australia’s dollar sovereignty, we can fund free public transport just like roads or hospitals, as a public good that serves everyone.

7. Denis

   I’ve been on The Guardian of late. I’ve wanted to raise dollar sovereignty but lack confidence in my ability to counter an argument that spending on hospitals would raise inflation.

   I have instead argued that there is plenty of room to spend on hospitals if the government spent wisely and raised taxes on assets where the revenue mostly goes overseas, that is stop fossil fuel subsidies and tax gas companies. That suffices for the argument, but I would like to raise dollar sovereignty.

   I can see the argument that the government spends when it prioritizes something, so things the government spends unwisely on where the money stays in Australia could be replaced by spending on hospitals or free public transport.

   Am I limiting myself too much?

8. You’re not limiting yourself at all, Gonggongche. You’re already making strong points, and adding dollar sovereignty simply strengthens them.

   Government spending on hospitals does not cause inflation unless it pushes the economy beyond its actual capacity, such as not having enough nurses, beds, or equipment. Inflation comes from real shortages, not from the dollars themselves.

   Dollar sovereignty simply clarifies the mechanism: Australia issues its own currency, allowing it to always fund hospitals, free public transport, or any other service that utilises Australian resources. The real limit is staff, materials, and planning, not money.

   You’re on the right track already. Dollar sovereignty simply gives you the confidence to say, “We can fund what we need, as long as we have the real resources to do it.”

9. Once again, we have the suggestion that MMT is some form of panacea.
   Once again, I won’t extensively repeat positions I have already expressed, but an often ignored (but vital) component of MMT is that governments cut spending during times of inflationary pressure.
   Does the free public transport stop when the government faces inflation?
   What evidence is there that a government in the past 30 years has done anything beyond relying on inequitable and punishing interest rates to control inflation?

10. AC
    Thanks for raising this, and you’re right that MMT isn’t a panacea. It simply explains how a currency-issuing government works and what the real limits to spending are.
    A key point often missed is this: free public transport would not stop during inflation, because inflation isn’t caused by essential public services being free. Cutting services doesn’t reduce inflation, it just makes life harder.
    When inflation happens, a government should deal with the real cause of the price rises, not the public good.
    For example:
    • If inflation is driven by energy prices, fix the energy supply.
    • If inflation is driven by housing shortages, build housing.
    • If inflation is driven by corporate price-setting, regulate pricing power.
    • If inflation is driven by supply bottlenecks, invest in capacity.
    You fix the source of the inflation, not the services that make society fairer.
    Public transport, hospitals, education, and other essential services are not what drives inflation, and cutting them does nothing to solve it. In fact, free public transport lowers household costs, reduces fuel demand, and improves productivity, which helps stabilise the economy rather than overheat it.
    So, the question isn’t whether free transport would stop during inflation, it’s whether the government is willing to address the actual drivers of inflation instead of relying on blunt tools like interest rates.

11. Wollongong runs a substantial free bus system. The existence of the University and large TAFE at North Wollongong was, I believe partly responsible for the decision to be made to relieve major traffic and parking problems that would arise with hundreds of students coming and going each day. When I studied at UOW, I used to take the train from Albion Park Rail to the North Wollongong station, where full sized buses run on an untime-tabled shuttle from the station, stopping at TAFE and then cruising around the university campus. This is always well patronised during the school terms. A second free bus which serves the general population, runs from North Wollongong, into the CBD, stopping at the Wollongong Hospital and Wollongong Station and on demand.

12. Thanks Denis, sorry I hadn’t noticed your reply until I just now.