Re: 7-30 report on fuel excise

["Andrew Honan" <ahonan@wr.com.au>]

You raise some interesting points concerning diesel fuel excise.
I believe that the trucking industry should pay a greenhouse (or carbon tax)
and not receive a reduction in diesel fuel excise. The trucking industry is
getting a free kick by not properly paying road usage charges as well as
receiving diesel fuel excise rebates.

I don't believe that spending nothing on rail infrastructure is viable. The
rail infrastructure is already in a very poor state and needs investment to
make it competitive (along with logistics and operations).
There has to be some micro economic stimulus (tax breaks) by government for
rail to be given a chance. I think bodies such as the ACCC and IPART view
access fees. they would probably view access feesin terms of fair
competition to rail operators (trying to get access to the infrastructure)
and infrastructure cost recovery.

Regards

Andrew Honan

Maurie Daly wrote in message ...
>Dont know whether anyone saw this report last night,but it was mainly about
>the effects of the reduction in diesel fuel excise and the effects this
would
>have in regards to the road freight industry.
>The report was mainly about the increased amounts of diesel fuel that will
be
>consumed by trucks , and its effects on health and pollution.
>However one disturbing fact that came up in the program was in relation to
an
>interview with a representative of the Road transport industry who
indicated
>that the fuel excise reduction would allow the road freight industry to get
>back up to 50% of NRCs current annual loading.
>Its not secret that the effects of the fuel excise reduction , whilst it
>benefits rail , benefits road much more simply because road is a much
greater
>user of diesel fuel than is rail , and fuel excise is the only tax that
road
>users have to pay, whereas rail users have to pay the tax plus rail access
>charges , (also a tax).
>Rail Access charges plus fuel costs are now Rails highest cost component,
>greater than salaries.
>
>A lot of rail commentators rightly indicate the enormous imbalance in the
>amounts of funding for road and rail , and point to the fact that Govts
need
>to spend much more on rail , mainly in the areas of infrastructure
>improvements.
>Whilst this is common sense , it doesnt however in the short term , do much
>about the running costs for Rail Operators, ie they will still have to pay
>fuel excise and track access charges,so any benefits from infrastructure
>improvements will be only incremental and long term.
>A better solution , in the short term would be to spend nothing on
improving
>rail infrastructure , and simply waive all track access charges , for say 5
to
>10 years.
>This puts rail roughly on a level playing field with trucks as far as daily
>operating costs are concerned.
>It doesnt of course address the imbalance of the infrastructure spending
>imbalance,but being pragmatic and given recent history , I cant see the
Feds
>or anyone else , either Liberal or Labor doing anything about the Neville
>report.
>Just another rail inquiry that will gather dust.
>
>cheers
>MD
>